- 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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2018 [1].
- Nominator(s): JC7V (talk) 07:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I feel after the work that was put into the article, including my work that I put into it that it's ready to be a FA. I feel it's already a FA but would accept feedback to fix any loose ends to make it a FA. It's the first true Sony handheld video game system. JC7V (talk) 07:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unfortunately at this point I don't feel this article is ready for FA. Some specific issues:
- I'm seeing quite a bit of unsourced detail, including much of the Models table and some of the specifics of the redesigns
- The prose needs work in general for clarity and flow - for example "The PlayStation Portable was met with positive reception as most video game critics gave the PlayStation Portable positive reviews"
- Citations need work for completeness and consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—I think this article needs a substantial rework to meet FA quality in its current state.
- Prose is messy. There's lots of unneeded words ("Also, it only features a mono speaker instead of the previous models' stereo speakers") and clunky phrasing.
- The structure of the article doesn't feel very focused, nor logical. The article starts with the announcement and launch of the intial version, which is fine, but we then get a huge contextless table of revisions, then a discussion of the later revisions before the initial one. Basic details aren't covered until the "Hardware" section that comes after mentioning all the different revisions. Reception is sometimes in the section about the hardware revision (PSPGo), other times in a dedicated section (Reception and sales). There's an unnecessary and thin "controversy" section that really feels like it should just be expanded into a marketing section and moved somewhere more germane. There are lots of single lines orphaned from paragraphs. It's kind of weird that a game handheld covers digital comics reading before it covers games.
- I'm not sure about a lot of the images. Given how minor the PSP Room mention is, I don't see how File:PlayStation-Room.jpg is justified per non-free content criteria. A lot of images are repeated in the table and then elsewhere in the article.
- There's a number of issues I saw in a spot check of sourcing.
- Despite the high price, the console's PAL region launch was a resounding success, selling more than 185,000 units in the UK. The PSP sold out of all stock nationwide in the UK within three hours of launch, more than doubling the previous first-day sales record of 87,000 units set by the Nintendo DS. is not directly cited, and is not contained in the next cited source (current ref 32.)
- Nintendo had been dominating the handheld market since launching its Game Boy in 1989, with only close competition from Sega's Game Gear (1990–1997), and Bandai's WonderSwan (1999–2003) in Japan. is not adequately cited by [2], not to mention the GameZone article doesn't appear to be a good source to use in the first place.
- The PSP Go features 802.11b[68] Wi-Fi like its predecessors, but replaced its USB port with a proprietary connector. A compatible cable that connects to other devices' USB ports is included with the unit. The new multi-use connector allows for video and sound output with the same connector (using an optional composite or component AV cable). is not adequately cited to anything; refs 68 and 69 do not cover the details of the connector.
- The above were just a few that I randomly pulled out. There are additional lines throughout that are clearly not cited at all.
- Sources in spots need to be fully formatted, and archiving them would be a good idea as well.
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note -- I'll be archiving this shortly in line with the above comments, so that improvements can be made away from the pressure of the FAC process; per FAC instructions, pls wait a minimum of two weeks before (re-)nominating this or any other article. Once initial improvements are made, I'd recommend taking through GAN and then a Peer Review before considering another FAC nom; you'd also be eligible to try the FAC mentoring scheme. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
