Wikipedia:Featured article review/Link (The Legend of Zelda)/archive2

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

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:59, 3 July 2009 [1].

Link (The Legend of Zelda)

Review commentary

Notified: Wikiproject Video games, Wikiproject Video games Nintendo task force

I know this won't be popular, but this article has numerous persistent issues. Article is failing the following criteria: 1a, 1b, 2b, 2c, 3, 4.

Several sections of the article are either unsourced or have {{fact}} tags strewn about.
The prose is handled as if Link in an in-universe style for several of the paragraphs. In addition more than a few of these could do with summarization.
The character development needs a copy edit, and is very hard to follow.
The article itself is hard to follow in several areas, and might do with a restructuring condensing the video game appearances and appearances in other media into more well defined parts.
The three successive images of Link outside of the infobox do not contribute much to the understanding of the character.
Reception seems extremely small for a character with such impact, no mention of merchandising or other formats.

As it stands, this article feels more C-class quality than FA, and really needs a major overhaul.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please list the completed notifications at the top of this page. Thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The images do illustrate the changing style of the artwork. DrKiernan (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist – it does not even meet the Good article criteria. There are too much unsourced information, there are numerous prose/MoS issues such as one-sentence paragraphs, and the non-free images do not show they aid readers in understanding the article (that is, I contest that they could be removed without affecting how readers understand Link). The lead section is also too short for an article this size (should be at least three full paragraphs per WP:LEAD as this article is well over 30K characters of prose), and the content is riddled with words to avoid and peacock terms. Finally, as Kung Fu Man noted above, the prose sorely runs awry in regards to writing about fiction and provides little or no outside perspective. MuZemike 19:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would delist this as current... the entire thing needs to be streamlined to remove poorly constructed paragraphs that read off like laundry lists with sad and lonesome one-sentence lines. The images of Link do nothing to meet WP:NFCC as they are all illustrations and not emblematic of his actual appearance in the games. Much of the out of universe information is WP:OR or uncited, and the reception/impact section is pitiful. No way this meets comprehensive coverage. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed every single image save for the infobox one (File:TLOZ Phantom Hourglass Link.jpg. I think a case could be made for having one of the more common depictions as the infobox image, with the 'toon presentation later in the article, but that would require critical information on reaction to the article style, et al be added (I think the GameTrailers retrospective on the series mentioned some of that.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, prose, original research, MOS copyrights. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per citations and original research, which are more pressining IMO than some choppy prose. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist citations needed. DrKiernan (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist for a number of reasons, including citations and prose. The reception bugs me - I was able to find enough content to make a decently sized paragraph for Lucas, albeit kind of weak reception, but a Japan-only character shouldn't be in a position to be compared to one of the most prolific video game characters. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 12:18, 28 June 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.