- Self-nomination This article has improved a lot and does receives a nomination because it provides everything from the games that'll be released to the hardware. Mastermind 18:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - information is always changing about the PS3. Plus, some of it could do with some more citing. Think it'll be better once all the details are gathered (ie, when it is released) and then maybe it could be a candidate. -- Thorpe | talk 18:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Object, this has a big gallery of (questionable) fair-use images.
Christopher Parham
(talk)
19:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, another thing that will have to be dealt with in order to have this featured. -- Thorpe | talk 19:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - Authors are overly optimistic about PS3 and interpret release information likewise. For example the first available date was a debacle, until Sony made it unquestionable. Optimistic authors are trying to do the same with information related to product cost and pricing. Daniel.Cardenas 21:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Remove my opposition since pricing range has been announced, so there isn't much debate on that subject. Daniel.Cardenas 03:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- The price is yet to be confirmed. Maybe you were looking at the vandalised version. -- Thorpe | talk 18:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - I agree with the above. Sony still hasn't even priced the unit or given an exact date, and I don't think any featured article should be on a topic that could change so drastically at a moments' notice. Example: What about the chance the system is more expensive than hoped? The page would need lots of content added to deal with the contraversy, and entire sections would undergo upheaval with the attraction of vandals. In addition to fair-use and POV concerns, this article is just a bad candidate until we have much more information. Gspawn 14:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - I have not looked to see if anyone had changed the beginning of this article in order to make it funny, but in its current form this article is not of high quality. It says Sony "lied" in its projected release date --this in part because the company expects to "do a good job" this time. Also the article jests that buying a PS3 would even break Bill Gate's bank.
- You were reading vandalism that was quickly reverted. Daniel.Cardenas 16:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - The article suffers information inclusion overload, and most of the work that has gone into it simply tries to ensure that included information isn't downright incorrect or skewed. Most of the article is just lists of specifications that most readers cannot interpret nor would likely care about. What small portions are not have questionable text and scope. Furthermore, as already mentioned, there isn't enough information on this thing for it to BE much of an article yet, what shreds of information are available usually are surrounded by speculation, and even the hard facts that can be reported change on a weekly basis. No, this thing is far from FA quality. --
uberpenguin
@ 2006-04-24 15:40Z
- Self-nomination This article has improved a lot and does receives a nomination because it provides everything from the games that'll be released to the hardware. Mastermind 18:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - information is always changing about the PS3. Plus, some of it could do with some more citing. Think it'll be better once all the details are gathered (ie, when it is released) and then maybe it could be a candidate. -- Thorpe | talk 18:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Object, this has a big gallery of (questionable) fair-use images.
Christopher Parham
(talk)
19:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, another thing that will have to be dealt with in order to have this featured. -- Thorpe | talk 19:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - Authors are overly optimistic about PS3 and interpret release information likewise. For example the first available date was a debacle, until Sony made it unquestionable. Optimistic authors are trying to do the same with information related to product cost and pricing. Daniel.Cardenas 21:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Remove my opposition since pricing range has been announced, so there isn't much debate on that subject. Daniel.Cardenas 03:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- The price is yet to be confirmed. Maybe you were looking at the vandalised version. -- Thorpe | talk 18:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - I agree with the above. Sony still hasn't even priced the unit or given an exact date, and I don't think any featured article should be on a topic that could change so drastically at a moments' notice. Example: What about the chance the system is more expensive than hoped? The page would need lots of content added to deal with the contraversy, and entire sections would undergo upheaval with the attraction of vandals. In addition to fair-use and POV concerns, this article is just a bad candidate until we have much more information. Gspawn 14:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - I have not looked to see if anyone had changed the beginning of this article in order to make it funny, but in its current form this article is not of high quality. It says Sony "lied" in its projected release date --this in part because the company expects to "do a good job" this time. Also the article jests that buying a PS3 would even break Bill Gate's bank.
- You were reading vandalism that was quickly reverted. Daniel.Cardenas 16:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - The article suffers information inclusion overload, and most of the work that has gone into it simply tries to ensure that included information isn't downright incorrect or skewed. Most of the article is just lists of specifications that most readers cannot interpret nor would likely care about. What small portions are not have questionable text and scope. Furthermore, as already mentioned, there isn't enough information on this thing for it to BE much of an article yet, what shreds of information are available usually are surrounded by speculation, and even the hard facts that can be reported change on a weekly basis. No, this thing is far from FA quality. --
uberpenguin
@ 2006-04-24 15:40Z