Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tikal the Echidna
Tikal the Echidna[edit]
This article is well-written, covers the topic, has enough references, stable, has a lead section, and is factually accurate. Is it good enough to be a featured article? --71.105.14.68 18:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Object. The article completely lacks an out-of-universe perspective. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).
- Object—2a. The prose will have to improve significantly to meet our standards here. Here are examples.
- "Her character is described as 14 years old, 3 ft 1 in tall, and 52.8 lb in weight." "is described as"—who's doing the describing? Do we need to say this? Replace with "is"? Metric equivalents for 96% of humanity, please? "Her character" is then "The character" in the following sentence. Confusing.
- "voice acting"—do you mean "voice-over"?
- "Moreover" is inappropriate as an agent of cohesion here. Ask me if you don't see this.
- I don't want to read in passing of "Pachacamac's power-hungry ways" in the lead without some prior mention of it. More logical treatment in the lead is required, or remove it and treat in the body of the article.
- "Tikal's role in the game, Sonic Adventure, is to show what happens thousands of years prior to the game and is the plot of it." The last five words go "clunk".
- "to stop all his fighting, stealing, and killing"—spot the redundant word.
I won't go on. This needs to be "compelling, even brilliant" to pass, no matter how many fans support the nomination here, or vote "Support" just because they like the topic. Tony 07:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
PS It would be nice if the anonymous nominator bothered to register; there may be reason to communicate with this person one-to-one—you never know. Tony 07:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Object per Tony. — Wackymacs 08:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Object per Tony, and also the lack of referencing in the article.
And, I know that this is minor, the japanese pronunciation has a help symbol next to it, which I feel needs to be sorted out. This little problem no longer matters now that the referencing has been made better, along with 2a. However, 2a and referencing still isn't up to FA level yet.The Halo (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)