Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Steve 09:45, 19 May 2009 [1].

The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening[edit]

Nominator(s): OboeCrack (talk) 11:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has improved since its last FAC. OboeCrack (talk) 11:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -
~~You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates~~ There was only one. Corrected to cite journal.
What makes the following reliable sources?
- http://www.zeldainformer.com/z4la/index.php I think its a useful page, but the dates are not right in any page, only the release date of japan of the normal version, and the release date in europe of the dx. If you see they match in the correct ref source with the inforrmation that is placed in this page, so I suppose the others are right.
- http://www.rpgamer.com/news/japan/rp033104.html Difficult to find in another place. It says that it was said in the GDC.
~~http://www.zeldaelements.net/4secretseashells.shtml deadlinks~~ Corrected.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

~~The Reception infobox has no refs.~~ BUC (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done and added some more. OboeCrack (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The prose is still exceedingly choppy in some points, and there's still a lack of content, particularly for development. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more explicit please? OboeCrack (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is very little in the way of actual development of the title--there's info about marketing and the DX version, but nothing beyond technical credits for anything else. Also, you're adding incorrect citations; please double-check them, that's why I removed them originally. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This was a little too premature, because I know some information is missing, such as the censoring/regional differences between the games. I feel for this to reach FA it'll need that before a nomination is done, sorry. I'd recommend withdrawing this until the prose is tidied and such information has been added with proper citations.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I give up. Please Kung Fu Man, write a list with some interesting things that can be added in the talk page of the article. We have the one you said, but we need more. Thanks for the advice given. OboeCrack (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a formal withdrawal request? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are the ones the know more about the article so I don't think they will change their mind. So yes it is. OboeCrack (talk) 08:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal per this comment. Please do not edit the article talk page to remove the {{FAC}} template; a bot will process the rest. Steve ^{T • C} 09:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.