Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bionicle/archive2

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 Dabomb87 13:50, 10 November 2009 [1].

---

Bionicle

Nominator(s): Twilight Helryx 02:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Bionicle/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Bionicle/archive2

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it that it has met all FA criteria. The issues which got it rejected the first time are no longer there, and after fixing all the issues the now-removed templates said needed fixing, I think it is ready for a second chance.--Twilight Helryx 02:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - the major issue identified in the last FAC (lack of inline citations) has not been resolved at all, and there are scores of other issues with the article as well. Recommend withdrawal and a series of peer reviews to help improve the article. Steve Smith (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - adding the necessary citations. Thank you for pointing that out. May I ask what the other issues are? Sorry, but I'm currently the only person whose really editing this article now.--Twilight Helryx 03:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• It's written from a very "in universe" perspective (see WP:MOSFICT for more on this), the prose isn't great, and it's severely short of references to reliable third party sources. This is a good start, but it really has quite a distance to go before it will be ready for FAC. Steve Smith (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Please add alt text to the two images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, suggest withdraw (by an odd name) I clearly see Steve Smith's issues. Also:

• Most importantly, what are the actual toys? There are subarticles, so at least summarize what they say about the actual toys and toy sets (if they say anything about them); maybe list a few examples if you want a full list somewhere else. This is the central subject of the article ("Bionicle is a toy line from the Lego Group marketed at 6-16 year-olds"), so at that point I simply demoted to C and didn't look back.
• How has the toy line sold overall? How have critics generally received the line?
• Contrary to popular belief, "Bionicle" is not "Bionic" with an "-le" suffix, but a portmanteau constructed from the words "biological" and "chronicle".—if there's no clear (cited or common-knowledge) evidence people actually think it's "'Bionic' with an '-le'", just say what it really is. Use italics, not bold, for the emphases.
• However, a recent advertisement for the Toa Mahri listed Kongu as a "Kahu" bird rider.—I didn't see the ad. Source please.
• Any info on the development of the general line? I see a tiny bit in the lead: "The concept was derived from Lego Group's earlier themes Slizers/Throwbots and Lego RoboRiders. Both of those lines had similar throwing disks and characters based on classical elements." How do you know this? Sounds like original research unless the Lego teams, critics, or some other reliable source has said so. (added on 05:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC))
• The Three Virtues (Unity, Duty, and Destiny), a recurring theme throughout the Bionicle storylines. You say this and then make no further mention of them in the body; are they minor aspects, then? Also, unless the symbols themselves (which is which, by the way? Is only the middle dot Duty, or all three dots?) are the Virtues (as opposed to the qualities of unity, duty, and destiny), just remove the non-free image. (added on 05:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC))

--an odd name 04:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawing.--Twilight Helryx 13:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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