Wikipedia:Featured article review/Final Fantasy VI/archive1

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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 03:58, 25 November 2009 [1].

Final Fantasy VI

Review commentary

Featured article review/Final Fantasy VI/archive1

Notified: Sjones23, Ryu Kaze, Kariteh, Hibana, Crazyswordsman, Deckiller, WikiProject Square Enix, WikiProject Video games

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has several issues that need to be taken care of. This article was nominated for FA back in 2006 when standards were significantly lower. Here are my concerns:

The lead does not adequately summarise the entire article and needs to be expanded. There are also refs in the lead, which is unnecessary as per WP:LEADCITE.

Done. 16:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The third paragraph of the Gameplay section is unsourced. The paragraph is also very short and should be merged into another one.

Done. 18:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the Combat section is unsourced.

Done. 14:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The whole Plot section is too long, and needs to be condensed as per WP:PLOT. The Setting section specifically needs to be trimmed.

Setting is now trimmed. 18:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The second and third paragraphs in the Graphics section are too short to stand on their own and need to be merged into another paragraph. The last sentence in the first paragraph of the Graphics section is unsourced.

Done. 18:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The last sentence of the Localization section is unsourced, and the second and fourth paragraphs of that section are also unsourced.

Done. 18:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The last sentence of the first and third paragraphs of the Re-releases section is unsourced.

Done. 18:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The whole Reception is confusing to read; it needs to be restructured and possibly rewritten. There are also two one-sentence paragraphs that need to be merged into another paragraph.

Done. The quasi-chronological listing of reviews is now split up by which version was being reviewed, which I think makes a bit more sense. --Pres N 17:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for references, this should be replaced with the June 5th issue of Famitsu Weekly, as that's where the content originally stems from and the website is an unreliable source.

Done.

The link to ref no. 3 is dead.

Done.

The following refs seem to be unreliable sources: LostLevels (no. 19, 90), E. Boredom (no. 35), FINAL FANTASY 2000 (no. 36), Absolute-Playstation (no. 39), Caves of Narshe (no. 40, 60), Shadow Madness Classic (no. 41), Chrono Compendium (no. 42), filibustercartoons.com (no. 43), playeronepodcast.com (no. 44), Square Haven (no. 53), Everything2 (no. 59), and FantasyAnime (91).

8/12 refs replaced; remaining ones are E. Boredom, Shadow Madness Classic, Chrono Compendium, and playeronepodcast.com. 19:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Correction- 10/12 replaced. Remaining is the E. Boredom interview with Amano and the Chrono Compendium interview with Woolsey. --Pres N 20:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All bad refs replaced/removed. --Pres N 16:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are also a few incorrectly formatted refs, e.g. 82, 83, and 84.

Done.

I don't think the link to the Final Fantasy Wiki in the External links section is necessary.

Done.

Also, the images need alt text as per WP:ALT.

Done.

As it stands now, the article fails the FA requirements and needs a lot of work to fix the issues I've listed. The Prince (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate that it has many faults, is this really the proper venue to do this? Honestly, it would have been much easier and much more in the spirit of Wikipedia to cooperate and discuss this with the "main editors" of the article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the hippie: this is a LOT to hit people with at once.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a FAR is a bad idea, nor do I think Prince acted in bad faith. FARs are meant to fix problems rather than delist FAs. So long as improvements are being made, I'm sure the review will remain open. Heck, Final Fantasy's review was open for two months, but progress was made throughout the whole time, including time to research and organize sources offline. And I think Final Fantasy is now extremely better because of it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is now present (thanks), but it contains some phrases that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, and which therefore need to be removed and/or reworded as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. Also, some phrases duplicate what's in the caption; these also need to be removed or reworded as per WP:ALT#Repetition. The troublesome phrases are "Terra", and "enemy from the Japanese SFC and GBA, North American SNES, and Western GBA releases". Als, the "battle scene" alt text doesn't describe that scene very well: it doesn't say that the monsters are larger, are four-footed, and have spiky colars, nor does it mention the green battle field (the dominant color in the image) or the mountain background. Eubulides (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, tried to fix it. --Pres N 16:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, it looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the Plot section, there are wikilinks that link back to said article. Not sure about redirect linking but there sure are a lot of them in the article too. — Bl ue 。 13:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there aren't any self-links or links to articles that redirect back to this article after GamerPro64 removed that one. If there are any links that point to redirect pages... eh. That's why they redirect. --Pres N 00:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations, lead. Also note the recent change to the criteria requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oy, clearly being worked on, what's the rush? --Pres N 15:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there may have been a reason to raise concerns, but not to push it forward when it's clearly on its way to being complete. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current status- the majority of the above issues are fixed; remaining issues are: The lead needs to be rewritten to accurately summarize the article, sources need to be found for the second paragraph of the Combat section, 2 lower-quality references need to be replaced, and the reception section needs to be re-flowed. Hopefully I can finish this off in the next week. --Pres N 20:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've gone through and fixed everything listed above (thanks also to New Age Retro Hippie and GamerPro64 for some assistance). The article's looking a whole lot better now. --Pres N 17:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All the concerns I raised have been addressed. Well done! The Prince (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only took a very cursory look here, but did not see major problems:

WP:OVERLINKing review needed, example green and censor.
Per WP:MOSCAPS, why uppercase? ... , "SON OF A BITCH!", which ...
Is the "a" necessary here? Unsure. ... It received a 54 out of 60 points ...
This should not be an WP:ENDASH, I suspect an WP:EMDASH is intended, pls review throughout ... saying it "had everything you could want–heroes, world-shattering events, ...
Please review for logical punctuation, per WP:PUNC: sample ... Overall, RPGamer regarded the game as an "epic masterpiece" and "truly one of the greatest games ever created."[71][72]
Incomplete citation: The Video Game Hall of Fame - Final Fantasy III (US)". http://games.ign.com/halloffame/final-fantasy-iii.html. Citations need publisher and accessdate at minimum, author and publication date when available. Pls review all citations.

There are not major problems, so I probably won't revisit this review, leaving it to others to sort these. Pls ping me if needed. I'm troubled by Keep declarations where there are still fixes needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all of this and more. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Pres N 15:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just as an outside view, I'm not finding any named issues above to fix. It looks like a lot got done here, good work. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not seeing any significant remaining issues; good work to those who cleaned up the article. Maralia (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, this has been at FARC for three weeks and four keep votes, with no activity in a week+ - can we get this closed? --Pres N 15:39, 24 November 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.