[edit] Nintendo DSi

Nominator(s): « ₣M₣ » 20:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Nintendo DSi/archive1

Featured article candidates/Nintendo DSi/archive2

Toolbox
disambig links edit count external links alt text

I am nominating this for featured article because......any legitimate issues brought up in the first nom were fixed in September. This article has been copyedited, researched, and otherwise nitpicked by some editors and its sources and prose have been run through the gauntlet. « ₣M₣ » 20:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, that one instance of Kotaku cannot be replaced for now. When it comes to retail DSi-exclusive games, nobody else seems to care enough about the subject to do their own research, so they just source Kotaku instead. « ₣M₣ » 00:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Is the peer review closed? (I noticed it with the assessment gadget.)
• I changed the alt text a bit; see "Verifiability" in the guideline.
• No dab links or dead external links, which is good.
• I think the main author name format in citations is Firstname Surname, but there remain a few Surname, Firstname. Pick one format, or yell for help. :) (added on 02:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC))

--an odd name 02:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The PR is now closed. Most citations have a Firstname Surname format with the exception of interview citations since I see no author parameter available. :/ « ₣M₣ » 02:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Used "lastn" for the full names. On a side note I saw Yui Ehara and thought of Yuri Ebihara...LOL. --an odd name 02:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Image review - The images were checked at the last FAC - have they changed since then? Awadewit (talk) 03:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No images were changed since then. « ₣M₣ » 15:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Source comments Dabs and links fine. What makes this reliable?

• http://www.defectivebydesign.org/about
• MCV and GamePro need italics.
• I appreciate the presence of publishers and locations for some of the refs, but if you can't do it for all of them, I suggest you remove them for uniformity. It's up to you: either all or none. RB88 (T) 21:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That about page pretty much sum up their POV, doesn't it? Its removed and formatting addressed. All or none? Opted for the former. « ₣M₣ » 07:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)