Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Legend of Zelda (series)/archive1

The Legend of Zelda (series)[edit]

I believe that The Legend of Zelda has stood up as a well written and sourced piece of work on Wikipedia as well as providing a comprehensive summation of the various games and which systems they were on in addition to accurate dating and an appropriate length. In addition to this the article as not recieved any major changes for some time and the majority of recent edits have been of little consequence to the article itself.

Overall I believe that the article has all of the necessary feautures to be a featured article and is of excellent quality.BigHairRef | Talk 22:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object: The author(s) of this article ought to go back and look for the NPOV in the first paragraph. Unless there is a quote that specifically states it, the phrase "equally incredible worlds" should be changed to reflect a less biased view. Also, there are multiple "citations needed" in the chronology section that need to be addressed before this article should gain FA status. According to the WP:RS "Sometimes it is better to have no information at all than to have information without a source". It is also a little long, but it looks as if it has been split pretty well. The "History" section might be able to be trimmed just a bit. Otherwise, it is a good article. Once this is cleaned up, it should be eligible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hairchrm (talk • contribs) .

I've tried to tidy it up a little. Hopefully it should be better. BigHairRef | Talk 02:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While you have cleaned this up, all you did was remove the "citation needed" pieces. What really needs to be done is to find evidence of this. There is also much more non-NPOV items in the intro, the example I gave was only one of the problems there. Unfortunately, I still need to give this one an Object.-Hairchrm 02:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object I greatly dislike the lead. It should be a bit longer and considerably less POV. Only 12 references for a 46kb-long article are not enough, and two of the citations are screwed up (and, apparently, were added today). Tons of statements- and, in fact, entire sections- are unsourced, and the article currently has two {{citation needed}} tags. The "Cultural influence" and "References in other games" sections are both lists instead of prose and far too long; in particular, removal of the entire "Cultural influence" section would greatly improve the article. There's not nearly enough exposition on the characters besides Link. WP:MOS problems- names of games should be in italics, not italicized and in quote marks, and not simply capitalized with no mark-up. -- Kicking222 02:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. There seems to be a lot of POV language in the article like "celebrated" and other superlative adjectives. There are multiple fair-use images being used. In addition to information still needing citations, whole sections have been marked as possible original research. The lists have gotten rather long instead of giving a few examples of major importance. I also agree that there seem to be style problems as well, most notably the fact that different styles are used throughout the article itself, i.e. the game titles. Shell ^babelfish 05:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Cititions Needed & Original Research tags do not belong in a featured article. Alexj2002 11:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]