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 19:12, 10 October 2009 [1].

---

Nintendo DSi[edit]

Nominator(s): « ₣M₣ » 01:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

I think Nintendo handheld is a pretty cool device. eh, has a camera and doesn't afraid of anything. Except vandalism and link rot, help me check the recent history to make sure I didn't miss reverting anything. :) « ₣M₣ » 01:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• [2] I tried ...I tried. « ₣M₣ » 22:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, that's a good start. For the images with captions, please reword the alt text to describe aspects of the visual appearance that are not in the caption, to avoid duplication, as per WP:ALT#Repetition. For the logo, please briefly describe what the logo looks like instead of just saying it's a logo. Eubulides (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see it's been fixed now; thanks. Eubulides (talk) 05:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help me with a referencing issue here? Template talk:Cite conference#Cite conference grievance « ₣M₣ » 15:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
• If you're going to use a short form of "Nintendo (2009)" the full listing of that reference at the end should list Nintendo as the author. I've fixed this for you, but keep it in mind for future FACs.
• One deadlink with the link checker tool, and one link is marked "deadlink" in the article (they aren't the same link).
• Current refs 11 & 12 are to Iwata Asks which is published by Nintendo. Publisher should be Nintendo, and you can use the work= field to say it's from the subsection of the site called Iwata Asks.
• Newspapers and magazine titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using ((cite news)), use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper (I noted Edge magazine and Game Pro magazine, there may be others)
  • I believe this has been addressed. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• What makes http://www.bit-tech.net/ a reliable source?
• Kotaku is a site that needs to justify any use by WP:SPS (in other words, the author must be significant rather than just a random writer off the street). What makes http://kotaku.com/5057883/lets-compare-the-ds-lite-and-the-dsi, http://kotaku.com/5099069/final-fantasy-crystal-chronicles-echoes-of-time-getting-special-dsi-bundle, and http://kotaku.com/5184277/nintendo-plans-nintendo-dsi-enhanced-game-cards-with-dsi+only-features reliable sources?
• Current ref 35 is just a plain url ... needs title, publisher, etc.
• Current ref 52 (wireless Home..) lacks a publisher
• Current ref 59 is just a plain url, needs publisher and last acess date at least. Also, what makes this a reliable source?
• Uncited quotations in the body of the article. Including in the reception section, first paragraph "well worth the money" and "Despite some drawbacks, the new handheld game console incorporates..."

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Bullet 1: Can you please explain to me more about mixing? I'm kinda confused when comparing it to Turok: Dinosaur Hunter.

• Don't worry, I fixed that. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet 4: Iwata Asks is an interview and I would like to treat it that way instead of using cite web. Is this okay?

Bullet 6: About page What stood out was this "...in 2005 became a fully professional online publication" as well as their acquirement by Dennis Publishing.

Last bullet: I've moved all those refs after ...will differ based on user preference. to avoid repetition, can I not do that because of the ref 65 splice? « ₣M₣ » 20:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You need to credit the Iwata Asks as published by Ninento, however that is done. I'm not sure what you're saying with the last one. Every quotation needs a citation to a source directly on the quotation, that's a requirement. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think everything is done. « ₣M₣ » 19:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

What exactly has been done? Have the Kotakur refs been replaced, and if so, with what? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←)In order of bullets not stroked-out: Deadlinks replaced with those published by Nintendo, I've used the callsign=(Nintendo) field for Iwata Asks (after what I said about bullet 4 earlier), all instances of Kotaku was replaced with IGN, all remaining fields filled out with ref 59 replaced with IGN [3][4], all refs moved directly onto their respective quotation. « ₣M₣ » 18:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose based on a cursory look. I thought some of the statements were a little wonky, so I went intetigating. For example: "Most reviewers cited similar strengths and weaknesses of the cameras. The cameras were criticized for their quality, especially for having lower resolution than that of mobile phones. The DSi's photo-editing software was seen as entertaining by critics, particularly the facial recognition technology, although some considered it a gimmick." is sourced only to [5]. That is one critic, not enough to make such assertions as in the text. Then there's "The concept involved focusing on making the device "My DS"—one console per person instead of its predecessor which was shared among multiple members of a household."; [6][7] barely mention the My DS thing and don't say anything about consoles shared among multiple members of a household. With such extrapolation going on in just these spot checks I think the article should be withdrawn and checked thoroughly. Martin Raybourne (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like remnants of misplaced sourcing after summer copyediting, which was on those two sections you brought up, so I basically moved around some references. Although you did say "for example", I'm inclined to believe those are the only cases. Wonky? Some stuff in there may hint at "Nintendomination", but can be traced back to this page.« ₣M₣ » 03:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose It doesn't have enough information to make it as a featured article. It should stay as a good article. Secret Saturdays (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an actionable oppose unless you say what the article is missing. Please clarify. Mm40 (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Images: All the images are fine except for File:Nintendo DSi.png. To make it a completely free image, the DSi logo should be 'shopped out (just add a black mask, shouldn't be hard to do.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Seriously? Its not like its the OS or any program. Can we just say someone took File:Nintendo DSi logo.svg and photoshopped it onto the screen? :P ...or is it because the logo "may be subject to trademark laws in one or more jurisdictions" ? « ₣M₣ » 23:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

  Marking all these logos as free and only subject to trademark laws is all well and good, except there's not actually been a court case that shows that the logos don't meet threshold of originality. It's best to be safe and avoid any applications, trademark or otherwise. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Concur with David Fuchs; if you can't manage the image editing, just take a photo of a switched-off DSi. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, a newer version is up now, so the older version can be deleted. « ₣M₣ » 02:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  Sadly, it's on commons... you'll have to ask an admin to delete the old rev. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, very good article. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 9 October 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.