Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Second Life/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Second Life

Came across this in trying to find out about the subject. The subject has generated allot of interest lately. I feel this is an exceptionally well written article full of good sources and citations and deserves to be featured! frummer 02:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Object Article is listy, full of external links in the text and features plenty of "citation needed" tags. Huge swathes of text are unreferenced. There's a merge proposal, which suggests it isn't stable. Refer to peer review. Gzkn 03:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Edit conflict with Gzkn
  • Object: A mere quick scan of the entire article reveals numerous citation needed tags and a merge notice. Plus the article is list-heavy; External links should be cleaned up and go after the references section, not before; a trivia section; table of contents is ginormous; and lots of stubby paragraphs. Major improvement is needed.--Dark Kubrick 03:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object (snow). Massive external link farm, cite needed tags, doesn't conform with WP:MOS, WP:MSH or WP:LAYOUT, needs cleanup, has a trivia section, rambling table of contents reflecting lack of organization in article, See also isn't see also. Nominator just removed an unreferenced tag from the article, which is needed. Please send to peer review before approaching FAC. Sandy (Talk) 04:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment although I've contributed a fair bit to this of late, I don't honesty think it's ready to be made a featured article. However, I'll be appreciative of comments on it so keep them coming ... and since it's been listed, I'll give some priority to improving it where I can. Metamagician3000 04:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Suggest peer review first. Sandy (Talk) 04:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I've just done some more clean-up including merging some overlong material into a Teen Second Life article, as has been proposed for some time but not done until now - I don't think this will be a controversial action. I've also slapped on some more "citation needed" tags (some of the existing ones were mine). I do think that a peer review would help a lot to get this closer to genuine FA standard. The nominator might like to think about that possibility. Metamagician3000 05:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object While it is well written, there are too many uncited sections that have the fact tag to achieve FA status. - NickSentowski 19:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object You do have some good things going for you (you being the various editors of this article), though. First of all, you are atttempting to, and succeeding more than failing, explain this to an audience that isn't familiar with virtual worlds and the like--thank you. My son and mother do this, participate in some virtual world, and just by reading this article I learned more than they ever explained to me. However, the prose is not rich or compelling. It's not bad, it's just somewhat without depth, flat. Some terms do need explanations after first usage, avatar, for example, any other technical term. "As of December, 2006, between about ten and twenty thousand users are in SL at any one time." This has been blanded to no meaning. "between about a large range of numbers" means you're clueless. This needs to go to a peer review, first, as suggested, but get some richness, some depth to the prose, first. KP Botany 21:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Aside from the many other glaring problems, does anyone else really dislike the small SL logo to the left of the lead? It's completely unnecessary, as the large logo is just opposite it, and it makes the article look unencyclopedic. -- Kicking222 00:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't really dislike it. I kinda like the color, in fact. KP Botany 01:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I really dislike it - it doesn't belong there. If WP:GTL, WP:LEAD, WP:MOS or some other part of Wikiland doesn't explain a proper encyclopedic lead and heading, we should make sure they do, lest we start seeing cutesy icons in the leads of other articles. (Besides, how about Fair Use on those images?) Sandy (Talk) 10:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't bother me anymore - I removed it. Sandy (Talk) 10:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
LOL, awesome! -- Kicking222 16:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, that takes care of that. Still, I thought the color was very nice. KP Botany 20:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it had to go. Metamagician3000 22:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: As a major contributor to the SL article and other SL-related articles, I can say without a doubt that Second Life is not in a state befitting featured article status. Signpostmarv 00:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Further comment - I've fixed everything I could without specialised knowledge. It's obvious that the article is still not in shape to be featured. In particular, a lot of citations are still needed (alas, finding them is beyond my expertise with this topic). I wonder whether the nominator would now be prepared to take it to peer review and maybe nominate it again at a later date, preferably when the citations are dealt with, along with anything else that comes out of peer review. Those of you who still think it has issues other than the citations, could you have a go at fixing some of them? I've rewritten a lot of it into what seems to me to be clearer and better prose, and I've pruned obviously extraneous material, but I'm getting too close to it now and I'd like to see someone else have a try. Metamagician3000 03:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)