Wikipedia:Peer review/Final Fantasy (video game)/archive1
This game is the quintessential RPG, and the article is in a high state of completion, but could use a boost of quality from you fine folks. So here it is; what keeps this game from being a Featured Article? Thank you much! Judgesurreal777 22:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
A few things I see, and I can always help if I get some free time ^_^
Footnotes and more references are recommendedI'd say trim the lead section by about 5-10 percent.I highly recommend reducing the amount of bulleted lists and replacing them with prose.I recommend compressing the story section by about 10-15 percent. I can help with that.Finished Deckiller 23:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Recpetion/criticism/significance section; that'll help trim the lead a bit.Perhaps some information on allusions and influences? Perhaps some citations and minor expansion.Deckiller 23:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this may be a bit too much/uncalled for/not right, but it might work. Deckiller 22:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
It might need a slight copyedit in some areas.Deckiller 23:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)There also seems to be a format issue with the references. Are they used in specific points in the article? In that case, we'll have to use the ref| and note| system.Deckiller 23:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)In agreement with Deckiller, it needs a copyedit.Layout looks great, it's not far off. --PopUpPirate 23:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
:Agree. I don't know if all the pics on one side look good on some of the higher resolutions (I see large white gaps). Deckiller 00:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
*I'm not crazy about the cover art gallery: without some sort of contextualization, it's pushing the boundaries of fair use, and it's frankly not all that appealing aesthetically. Might I suggest moving the images inline, to the relevant "differences between versions" section? I'm also not mad about the release details table, but it may be a necessary evil: the information is certainly relevant, and I don't think it's a good idea to prose-ify it all, but I don't like the presentation. Ideally, information concerning the WonderSwan Color port of the game should be physically close to section detailing that version, not shunted off at the end of the article.
Beyond that, I think three whole paragraphs on the game's class system is a little excessive, and some of it is veering towards GameFAQs material (tips on what classes are the "best," etc.). In addition, the section is in desperate need of copyediting: a disturbing number of sentences lack subjects ("Can be upgraded...","Not a good fighter...", etc.). Also, there's a minor issue with abbreviations: there are a lot of unexplained abbreviations flying around the article (WSC, PC, GBA, etc.). These should all be spelled out in full the first time they appear, and, if they're going to be abbreviated from then on out, that abbreviation should be identified in paranthesis following the full phrase (in other words, the first time you refer to "WonderSwan Color" follow it with "(WSC)"). Additional footnotes and references as suggested by Deckiller wouldn't hurt, either. By and large, though, the article is looking pretty good, and I particularly like the descriptions of the various remakes and rereleases. – Seancdaug 00:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so far we need to:
*Fix Cover art gallery
Put remake boxes nearer remake sectionFind more footnotes and references...- copyediting, trim down to 32k
What else needs fixing? Judgesurreal777 20:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Nice work! I'd say it's WP:GA status now!!! Deckiller 01:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC) -We are nominated :) Judgesurreal777 01:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Regarding List of Final Fantasy I artwork: no. Just no. This is far, far worse than before. Including the cover art in the article itself was ugly and a potential WP:FUC sticking point. This, in all likelihood, is a full-blown fair use violation; at the bare minimum, it's in violation of what Wikipedia is not. Articles which serve only as an image gallery are generally not encyclopedic, first of all. Consensus holds that articles which serve only as an image gallery for fair use images are in violation of our copyright policies: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Nintendo Entertainment System screenshots. We can only justifiably claim fair use for these images if we're using them to illustrate a point about the release of the game. That sort of information belongs in the main article, and if we can't include the images there, we shouldn't use them at all. More broadly, turning problematic sections into their own article does not strike me as an effective way of "improving" anything: I didn't like it when the version differences were spun off into a seperate article at Final Fantasy IV, and I'm not liking it here. Problems with an article are not solved by hiding the offending material in another article, and these subarticles generally do not have enough background information to stand on their own. The encyclopedia is not served by adding to article sprawl. It probably also bears pointing out that the game is not actually called "Final Fantasy I," but that's a minor complaint in any event. – Seancdaug 03:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Point taken. Please change it back to the way it was, but as to the issue in either article as to what to do with info like the super specific and hugte Final Fantasy IV versions information, and the large number of images in this article are a mystery to me as to how to solve, besides delete them. If that's our only option, ok, DO IT! :) Judgesurreal777 03:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- In view of Seancdaug's comments, I think it would be advisable to delete the box art page, are we agreed? As it is, in my humble opinion, they are extraneous and the screenshots serve as a much better comparison of editions than box art in Final Fantasy; also, there are already box art covers featured, do we really need a whole lot more? Thanks much! Judgesurreal777 04:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- I've refactored the entire "differences between releases" section, and tried to work some of the box art back in that way. Some of these images we really don't need, anyway: there's not that much difference between the three different Dawn of Souls covers, and most of the artwork from the various compilation releases can be presented just as well in the article for that compilation. I do think providing at least a selective sampling of box art is important, however: as an encyclopedia, we should spend as much time on the production and marketing of the product as we do on the experience of playing the game itself (if that makes any sense...), and screenshots alone don't do much to address that. – Seancdaug 04:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Looks really great! Much improved, ugly chart gone, box art gallery gone, wording far better..... Judgesurreal777 04:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- I've refactored the entire "differences between releases" section, and tried to work some of the box art back in that way. Some of these images we really don't need, anyway: there's not that much difference between the three different Dawn of Souls covers, and most of the artwork from the various compilation releases can be presented just as well in the article for that compilation. I do think providing at least a selective sampling of box art is important, however: as an encyclopedia, we should spend as much time on the production and marketing of the product as we do on the experience of playing the game itself (if that makes any sense...), and screenshots alone don't do much to address that. – Seancdaug 04:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)