Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nintendo DSi/archive3


 * 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 SandyGeorgia 15:55, 22 November 2011.

Nintendo DSi

 * Nominator(s):  « ₣M₣ »  23:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Introducing "Nintendo DSi" and "Nintendo DSi XL", the last installments in Nintendo's highly popular "Nintendo DS" handheld gaming family. The DS product line has sold over 149 million units worldwide and outsold the entire Game Boy series, which sold 118.69 million units. After thoroughly examining the previous Fac's, I'm ready to give this another try.  « ₣M₣ »  23:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose: - there are many some things that make me feel this fails 1(a), 1(b), 1(d) (in the lead mostly), 2(a) and possibly 1(c), 4 (could use 1 more image of a specific type...see below).
 * Link to the discussion


 * I'm still opposing this, although the its gotten a lot better. There are several outstanding things that cause this to fail:
 * 1(a) - I believe that the technical specifications is still littered with technical jargon and meta concepts not explained well to the average reader.
 * 1(a) - It is my opinion that the dimensions do not make for engaging prose and actually are more difficult to understand in prose rather than a table due to their nature.
 * 1(b) - There is no info on the region-locking of DS games (not to be confused with DSi-enhanced games). As this would be the first console to region-lock games that aren't region-locked for other handhelds and it would be a key difference between this and the previous DS handhelds, this is a crucial peiece of info. I admit it may have been added "secretly" and thus be hard to find, but that doesn't make it any less of a major piece of info one would expect to find in a comprehensive article on the DSi and what makes it different from its predessors.
 * 4 - As I pointed out, I believe a comparison picture or 2 of the two would be highly benificial to readers. One such freely available and freely modified image does exist already and its not impossible to create one with both screens open to compare the two. Even if you don't have both, you could probably go down to a local gameshop and ask permission to take an image of both side-by-side. It's not hard to come by. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  16:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'll leave it up to other reviewers to comment on how relevant these remaining points are, but I advise those to look at the discussion for point 3.  « ₣M₣ »  19:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Link check - no DAB-links, no dead external links, 3 overlinks fixed. GermanJoe (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't italicize publishers
 * If you're going to include publisher locations, you need to be more specific than "Japan" or "United Kingdom"
 * What does PALGN stand for?
 * What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This?
 * FN 79, 121: location?
 * FN 83: formatting
 * Why such heavy reliance on Nintendo sources rather than independent ones? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure if done. To clarify publisher italicization, IGN would be the work and Fox Interactive Media would be the publisher?
 * Removed all locations.
 * Spelled out PALGN abbreviation.
 * Andriasang is headed by Anoop Gantayat, a long time contributor at IGN.com: . Reliable gaming publications that have cited Andriasang include: GameInformer, Eurogamer , 1UP.com , Edge.
 * Removed one Kotaku ref. Is it okay to replace the other with inside-games.jp?
 * FN 83: fixed?
 * Proper sourcing depends on context. For example: while development history ends up being primarily from Nintendo (third-party sources simply provide a short summary and links the reader to Nintendo's story), Reception consists exclusively of third-party sources. When the article discuss context behind sales numbers, that's cited by third-parties. The chart is not. The demographic portion (Demographic and sales, Larger model) has opinion pieces from Nintendo, so its important to specify in-text its coming from them. The rest of the Nintendo sources, including those from the manual, are to provide straightforward, descriptive statements for its hardware, features, and certain aspects of its software library section (wp:primary).  « ₣M₣ »  00:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't read Japanese, so can't tell if your suggested source (or the other Japanese sources) are reliable or not. Your clarification about publisher is correct, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I thought so, hopefully that's done. Also, I went ahead and replaced the last Kotaku source with that of a second-party.  « ₣M₣ »  00:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


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