Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Final Fantasy

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Joelr31 01:52, 18 May 2009 [1].

Final Fantasy

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified WP Video games, WP Square Enix , WP Final Fantasy, Guyinblack25, Tedius Zanarukando, WP103, Hibana, Kariteh, Seancdaug, Deckiller, Nimrand, Bluerfn, Mythsearcher

I am nominating this article for featured article review because I do not feel it meets the current FAC. In particular, it fails criteria 1c (factually accurate) as it contains large amounts of unsourced text. I would not say that it is "well-written", failing 1a. I'd also say it fails 1b as there appears to be no information on the series' overall legacy, just a minor note that the various games are referenced in pop culture.

It also fails criteria 2 regarding style guides. The lead is not a summary of the overall article and contains multiple new statements that should be sourced within the article proper instead, so it goes against WP:LEAD. I do not feel it has an appropriate structure, with the development and history placed low in the articles, some sections seeming out of place (why isn't music under development?), an overview section seems odd, etc. It seems cluttered and not very well organized. It seems like the game list should be lower down, after being first summarized in the development/history. For criteria 3, there seems to be no real need for an image of the composer. File:Ff6 magitek.jpg is included in the image, but its caption doesn't indicate its significance. The splits of the gameplay and common elements seem odd, as if it was just a way to get excessive details out of the main article rather than fully addressing them. In either case, those sections do not appear to be summarizing their current parent articles well.

I believe the article needs a lot of work to bring it up to current FAC standards. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to the FACR, so I may not be good help in bringing this to standard. It seems like your points are correct and I agree that it would take much work to solve. MythSearchertalk 08:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the images, I see nothing wrong with a free image of the composer who became notable due to his work in the series as long as we're not wrecking the format of the article. The non-free artwork image probably needs a better rationale; the caption itself doesn't need to convey this (though it probably is better stated as "an example of the artwork by whats-his-name" to generalize it. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His image is in his own article. I see no valid reason to have it in an article on the series, even if it is free. It seems more decorative than anything else. Is it necessary to "see" the composer to know he made his career on the series? Film articles don't include images of the directors, producers, etc, why should a game article include a fairly random image of its musical composer? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some film articles do include pictures of the production staff, and some literature articles include images of the authors as well. I don't really see how the image is random, it's of the chief composer for a large chunk of the games. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Do some FA film articles, or just some in general? I really don't see how a biographical picture adds to the value of the article (and it also throws off that section which is only a paragraph). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Literature
Film
All FAs. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
To add another, Joseph Staten is in the background section of Halo: Contact Harvest, and Hiro Narita, shows up in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. I'm not saying that it's always proper to throw a free image in when its available, but people like having images, especially when it helps give the reader a mental image to associate with a name (generally that aids with comprehension.) --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue for keeping the picture if it broke up an unsightly wall of pure text (as in Chrono Trigger#Development_history), but there are already some other images around that part of the article. Unless the music section is beefed up with more text, I think removing the picture is fine. But really, the only rule we have to be mindful of is the "living / recently deceased" thing, and I doubt Uematsu doesn't want to be connected with Final Fantasy. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 05:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to the style concerns:
  • I agree the article should be restructured. I'll see about rearranging the content some.
  • To clarify, are the "new statements" in the lead you mentioned the lead: "...branched out into other genres and platforms..." and "...bested by Mario, Pokémon..."? Everything else I found in the article.
  • The main articles for the "Gameplay" and "Common elements" sections do not match what's in this article because those two articles are in poor condition and not really representative of their topics. The content in this article was written from the sources listed in "References", rather than summarized from those articles.
In regard to legacy:
  • The content is in the article, it just isn't labeled as "Legacy". "Merchandise and other media" touches on this some by illustrating that several titles in the series have been adapted and spun-off into other media. The Reception also mentions the series "...introducing and popularizing many concepts and features that are widely used in console RPGs", though it doesn't go into specifics.
  • Admittedly, I agree some more info would be a good idea.
While, I admit the article is not in its optimal shape, I feel that some of the issues are being exaggerated. Still, the article does require extensive work. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
There are nine sourced statements in the lead, some of which may be repeated in the article (though also repeated almost word for word, which also is obviously not summary). If the sections are not actually representative of the topics, that doesn't seem to meet the qualifications for their being summary splits, rather just shifting off bad content from the article to make the main look better. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the lead and whole article need prose revisions.
In regard to the split, the sections are representative and the split off articles cover their intended topics, just not comprehensively. The split occurred before this article was improved for FA, and the separate articles have been slowly worked on. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

What's the view on this at the moment? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe everyone is in agreement that the article is not up to FA standards. I've been going through sources and organizing notes offline. I plan on making changes to address the concerns this week. (Guyinblack25 talk 01:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
It's not. The article has degraded significantly since the FAC, primarily because of shifts in style and content. If I recall, the prose was quite good as of promotion; what happened? — Deckiller 06:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same thing that always happens. An innocent tweak here, a well-meaning tweak there, random vandalism here and there, and even a merge of content a while back. A year and half of that will degrade any article.
I'm still going through sources and making notes offline, but finding a good chunk of time to sit down and make real headway is difficult for me right now. Any help would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I've also been fairly busy as of late; it was one of the reasons I left for a year in the first place. Great progress has been made, though. — Deckiller 16:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to help out with the plot section. The Gameplay of Final Fantasy and Character design of Final Fantasy sections will let us punt on some of the excess detail in this article. I'd advise scrapping these sections as they're currently written, and merging a summarized version from both these articles to the extent that information can be verified. That will resolve most of the research issues. Randomran (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great job! It looks like the focus is now copy-editing and references. — Deckiller 01:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm still not very keen on the bullet list in the "main series" section. Could we somehow convert it to paragraphs, maybe one for each system? — Deckiller 21:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember switching it to prose a long time ago, but most editors felt the large chunk of text was too difficult to read. I kind of agree with them now; it was rather repetitive. You're welcome to try your hand at prose-ifying it. Maybe you can come up with something more engaging. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took a crack at it. — Deckiller 00:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job. Overall, I like it and think it's an improvement. Still a bit repetitive, but there's only so much that can be done with that content. (Guyinblack25 talk 01:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Anything outstanding in the "common elements" section? I feel like most of the outstanding issues could be fixed by summarizing the existing information and going into less detail. But curious if there's anything there that you would really like to have references for. Randomran (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the biggest issue is the gameplay section. Everything up to that section is sourced, but the sources you used in Gameplay of Final Fantasy should fix that. I hope to have some free time this weekend to go through the gameplay article and summarize it for this one. Of course, others are more than welcome to give it a crack as well. (Guyinblack25 talk 01:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      • Update- Finished up the Common elements section. Feel free to copy edit, add, and remove content.
        I think the main issues left are sourcing and copy editing the rest of the article. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • I went ahead and condensed that wall of text in the "main titles" section by gutting the plot blurbs; it seems better now. — Deckiller 17:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tasklist

Here's what remains, as far as I can tell:

  • extensive copy-edit by three people, one of which should be independent of our work;
  • sentence-by-sentence audit of claims and statements to ensure we're getting the correct point across, and trimming/expanding where necessary;
  • a few more references, as noted by "citation needed" tags; and
  • pruning excessive wikilinks.

— Deckiller 17:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the list. Personally, I think our (the fixers) main focus should be on everything past the "Origin" section, including the lead. All in all, I think the article has made tremendous progress. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I'm poking around this article from time to time. If someone actually flagged statements in the article with a "citation needed", I'd be happy to fill in a few. I don't have a lot of time, but Wikipedia is my way of taking a break, and I'm pretty solid with the research stuff. Randomran (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing-wise, I think the weakest sections are the last three paragraphs of "Graphics and technology" and the middle paragraph of "Legacy". I think the GameTrailers retrospectives cover some of it, but extra sources would be good to fill in blanks. Like the legacy paragraph, I wrote it from the current sources and my own memory. I meant to dig up more sources for the content based on what I remembered reading, but got bogged down with other stuff.
Once those are done, we can rewrite the lead and focus on general copy editing. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I guess it's not clear to me what hasn't been referenced. It looks like it's all referenced. I take it you want some references to be improved for specific statements? Randomran (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Sorry for being too vague. The middle section in "Legacy" about Square's switch to the PlayStation and lack of third-party N64 titles needs a few more sources to back it up.
I'll keep working on the "Graphics and technology" section. I think the GT Retrospectives should provide the necessary citations, I just need to go through them again. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
This is a great source on what the (lack of) Final Fantasy series did to Nintendo. If that's not enough, there's a few other sources that can fill in the gaps. This one talks about the cartridge/CD distinction, as well as this one, in the context of how it helped the playstation's dominance. This one goes so far as to describe an aborted FF7 for the N64. Fascinating stuff. I think those will be more than enough! Randomran (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and this one goes into more detail about the aborted FF7 for the N64. It's not reliable. But it does refer to some sources that *would* be considered reliable. This is more than enough information for the main series article, and starts to get into information that would only be suitable for the FF7 article, or the article about the console wars. Randomran (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, I'll integrate them into the article. That Lost Levels source use to be in the article, but I removed it because I couldn't find anything to establish the site's credibility. Once this's done I think the only thing left to do is to get someone to copy edit the prose and audit the sources. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Finished up the Legacy section and lead. The article is as good as I can make. A fresh pair of eyes to scrutinize the prose and references would take it that extra mile. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose and citations. Joelito (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—article is far better than it was before; all that's left is copy-editing. — Deckiller 22:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nice positive improvements, good work. Cirt (talk) 07:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm more than a little biased in this case, but I'd say the improvements address the concerns. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Remove. The article definitely needs copy-editing, so I don't know why Deckiller voted "keep"; it's FA criteria 1.a. The prose needs to be better written. Some sentences are poorly worded in a way that leads to confusion, inaccuracies, or apparent original research. For instance:
    • "Games section"
      • "unique story" -> All video games in the world have unique story, unless they're remakes. This should be reworded.
        • Done.
      • "compilation" is Engrish; the real word doesn't mean what Square Enix think it means. "Metaseries" should be used here.
        • Done.
    • "Main series" section
      • The re-releases of the NES installments are mentioned but those of the SNES installments are curiously missing.
        • It does, it says they were all released on multiple platforms, same as it does for FF1 and FF2 - only three gets a specific mention, as it only had one port 16 years later.
      • "Final Fantasy IX, released in 2000, returned to the series' roots by revisiting a more traditional Final Fantasy setting." -> The article didn't mention that the series started using non-traditional settings at one point, so this sentence can be unclear (non-fans could think traditional = 2D for all we know).
        • Done.
      • The third paragraph has too many "released in". The third and fourth have too many "the first". Use synonyms or other syntaxes.
        • Done.
      • There's also way too many repetitions of "Final Fantasy [#]". The "Games" section's lead already said that the main games are numbered, so no need to be so repetitive (except for pre-FFVII titles due to the FFII and III renaming). Why not use "The [#]th installment" and things like that.
        • Done.
      • "large, interconnected areas" -> Unclear.
        • Done.
      • Final Fantasy XIII in 2010 -> Any better source for that statement? IGN's "April 1, 2010" seems like another of their random placeholders.
        • Done.
    • "Sequels and spin-offs" section
      • Too many redundant statements. "Final Fantasy Adventure is a spin-off to the Final Fantasy series"--obvious, considering the name of the section.
        • Done.
      • The paragraph also keeps saying that this one and that one have Final Fantasy elements in them... Just say it once in the first sentence.
      • "Other direct sequels" -> Not the appropriate term. Only two games in the Ivalice Alliance are direct sequels and Fabula Nova Crystallis has no direct sequel at all.
        • Done.
    • "Other media" section
      • "based on the common elements of the Final Fantasy series" -> Redundant; already stated in the second sentence of the paragraph.
      • "directed by Tetsuya Nomura" and "directed by Morio Asaka." -> How is that important? None of the other designers are mentioned in this section.
      • The Case of Denzel OVA is not mentioned. It was released in Advent Children Complete.
      • "The past decade has seen an increase in the number of adaptations and spin-offs." -> This is either original research or a pointless statement (or both).
      • "was partially continued in novels and a manga after the anime series had ended" -> Source?
        • Done.
    • "Common elements" section
      • "Holy, Meteor, and Ultima" -> Why Meteor? It's neither Japanese, Hebrew nor Latin and I don't think it's a reference to a particular culture.
      • "and an emblem designed by manga artist Yoshitaka Amano" -> Not always. The Compilation of FFVII logos come to mind.
        • Done.
      • "a character or object central to the story" -> "Central" is not in the source and not neutral.
        • Done.
      • "a kingdom in rebellion" -> What? That only happens in FFII and VI.
      • "the main antagonist introduced at the beginning of the game is not the final enemy" -> Garland is arguably the final enemy of FFI since Chaos is him. The Emperor in FFII clearly appears as the main antagonist in the intro and is the final enemy. Exdeath is also the obvious main antagonist in FFV (before his first appearance, there just wasn't any individual antagonist at all).
        • Done.
      • "Stories in the series frequently emphasize the internal struggles, passions, and tragedies of the characters" -> Only after FFI.
      • "In recent years, the series has featured several males with androgynous or effeminate characteristics.[47][48][49]" -> Biased sourcing? Amano's males were very androgynous and effeminate too. There are probably sources noting that.
      • Dissidia Final Fantasy should be mentioned in this section as it notably made a story connecting all the main installments.
    • "Gameplay" section
      • It should be noted that this section deals with the main series and that the other games have differing gameplay systems.
      • The explanation of the ATB is long but unclear, while that of the CTB is a short non-informative filler ("but added more challenging nuances." :/ ).
      • No mention of the fact that you can move around in FFXI and XII, and use Gambits (AIs for the characters) in FFXII?
      • "Like most RPGs, the Final Fantasy installments use an experience level system" -> FFII doesn't.
      • ""Summons", have been inspired by mythologies from Arabic, Hindu, Norse, and Greek cultures" -> Not exclusively.
      • "Following Final Fantasy VII, vehicles adapted more modern and futuristic designs." -> They're not futuristic in FFIX and XI.
        • Done.
  • I haven't read the other half of the article yet so I'll probably add more points later. This list is already too much issues though. The article is clearly not FA-quality. Kariteh (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, my keep vote was with the assumption that the copy-editing would get done. Unfortunately, I have more pressing matters than Wikipedia at the moment, but it seemed as if several others were getting ready to go through the article. I guess not? As a member of WikiProject Final Fantasy yourself, you are more than welcome to help work on this article. Since you're a member of this WikiProject, why didn't you make those prose tweaks yourself? — Deckiller 18:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm going to mark the ones fixed already- GuyinBlack has started on it and I'll try to do a few. --PresN 17:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Kariteh- I've implemented some of your above suggestions. However, I don't believe all are real issues.
  • Main series
    • In regard to the NES re-release, those particular re-releases are just more notable.
      1. The first game is the most ported RPG in the series.
      2. The second game is rarely rereleased on its own.
      3. The third game's remake was the last previous title to get an official Western release.
    • Each main title had some notable information included about it. The later titles had more notable information than re-releases.
  • Other media
    • Not every "other media" is mentioned just like not every video game "spin-off" is mentioned. I feel enough information is there to convey that franchise has branched into animation.
    • The statement about the increase of spin-offs/adaptations is not a controversial statement, and is supported by the sources used in the rest of the section. Admittedly, it does border on synthesis. If it really think it should go, then I'll remove it.
  • Common elements
    • Meteor was added in simply as a recurring spell name, not as an example of a culture word. However, the word is derived from the Greek word "meteōros" and I believe Greek is has traces to Classic Latin.
    • I removed the "central" part about the logos, but I'd argue that this is such a non-controversial statement would not need exact sourcing.
    • In regard to FFI's lack of character development, I realize not ever installment fits into a formula. So there will be generalized statements that do not apply to every title, but are still representative of the series.
    • The sources for the androgynous statement are all recent articles. Do you have sources for Amano's designs?
    • Having not played Dissidia, I'd say such info is probably excess detail. But what did you have in mind for its inclusion.
  • Gameplay
    • Though it applies directly to the main series, it was written in a way to be inclusive for most of the games, especially the last two paragraphs. I will, however, add a note to the first paragraph about the difference.
    • What part of the ATB content is unclear? Can you please be more specific.
    • That content about FFXI and FFXII seemed like excess detail to me. Perhaps this can be mentioned in the content to be added for the first point.
    • FFII does use an experience level system. The individual attributes level up from participating in combat. It's just not the traditional one used in games.
    • I don't believe that sentence states that summons are exclusively inspired by the listed cultures. Though I could be wrong in my interpretation.
Comments about the rest of the article would be welcome as it's needed a fresh pair of eyes. Please feel free to make corrections as you proof read as well. Thanks for the comments. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep - the prose issue have been corrected to my satisfaction; the remaining problems Kariteh sees are largely not issues in my eyes. --PresN 01:15, 16 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Final_Fantasy&oldid=1087824693"