Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tikal the Echidna

Tikal the Echidna
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 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.Th e  Halo (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)