Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Panzer Dragoon Saga/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2018 [1].

Panzer Dragoon Saga edit

Nominator(s): Popcornduff (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Panzer Dragoon Saga, a 1998 role-playing game for the Sega Saturn. Saga is the most critically acclaimed Saturn game and appears on many lists of the best games of all time, but was released in very limited quantities and few people got to play it.

The article became a GA a couple of years ago. Since then, I've greatly expanded the Reception section, restructured the article a bit, and tightened up the references. Popcornduff (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie edit

I'll add comments as I go through.

  • Not keen on "have effects including". How about something like "The dragon's "berserks" [...] can inflict powerful attacks, heal Edge, or boost..."?
  • Since you only use the "BP" abbreviation once I'd drop it and spell out "berserk points" on the second occurrence.
  • Certain enemy attacks inflict status-changing affects: Unless I've misunderstood the sentence, I think this would be better as "Certain enemy attacks can change Edge's status: the "stun" status..."
  • After battles, the player earns a ranking: I think it would be better to have "battle" and "player" agree in number; probably "After a battle, the player..."
  • The plot section seems to just fade out. I assume the destruction of Grig Orig is the climax of the game as far as battles are concerned? Perhaps some signposting would make this clearer.
    • The final battle is: Edge and the dragon defeat the network's "anti-dragon" programs. Is this obscure?
      It's not clear to the uninformed reader that this is the climax of the plot. Perhaps if you end the paragraph after that sentence, and make it clear that what follows is abstract and without a clear resolution, as you say below, then that would be clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Forgive my being difficult about this, but I'm not sure what it is you're suggesting here. Do you think we should literally write something like "The following events are abstract and do not end with a clear resolution"? Because that would be inserting personal interpretation, a violation of Wikipedia plot summary rules. I think if you read the events as they're described and come away thinking "that sounds weird", then the summary is probably a pretty accurate reflection of events.
      Having said all that, I rewatched the final sequence and rewrote the article to hopefully made some things a bit clearer. I made the fourth wall breaking element more explicit, and I'd forgotten that the sequence pretty explicitly says why Azel is asking directions. I hope this makes things a bit more useful. Popcornduff (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I think all I'm asking for is a clear indication that the defeat of the network's "anti-dragon" programs is the climactic battle. As someone who's never played the game, I read through the plot and took that sentence as indicating another step in the progress of the plot, expecting the plot to end in combat, as so often happens. Just adding "... in the game's final battle sequence" or something like that to that sentence would do it. I'm not a regular video game player, so perhaps my expectations aren't in sync with how games are actually plotted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I appreciate the difficulty of having to come up with arguments about this when you're not familiar with the subject matter, and I do take the point that this is exactly who we should be writing for.... but I can't see eye to eye with you on this, I'm afraid.
Is it important to know it's the final battle? I don't think it's the important takeaway here, when we're summarising the plot. It's not even that climactic - it's this very abstract, almost ambient sequence that doesn't have a lot to do with the rest of the game's battles. The actual important event here is that Edge disappears into Sestren. If other editors have other opinions I'm all ears though. Popcornduff (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure what you mean by "just seems to fade out". The end of the game is pretty abstract, and ends without a clear resolution... Popcornduff (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      That's what I meant. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused by the timeline in the first couple of sentences of the "Development" section. If it took two years, and was released in 1998, then they began work in 1996. They started development at the same time that the Panzer Dragoon II Zwei team began development, but that game was released in 1996. So Panzer Dragoon II Zwei was released the same year it began development? Not impossible, but surprising enough I wanted to verify I had it right.
    • Nice catch. I went back and checked the sources and they don't agree. Gamespot says two years, but an interview with the developers in the strategy guide says three. I'm assuming the developers know best, and that makes more sense, as you point out - plus I found some more detail to include about how they split the teams. Popcornduff (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both subplots were cut for time.: a bit compressed -- this could mean lack of development time, or to eliminate a slow period of gameplay. I think it's the latter, but I'd suggest clarifying.
    • Done. I've reworked the entire Development section so you might want to reread the entire thing. Popcornduff (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the graphics paragraph in the "Reception" section, Sega Saturn Magazine praises the '"stunning" visual effects', and Steve Key praises "some of the greatest visual effects on any home system". Could these comments be combined, so we get the statement first, and once only? Personally I think it's OK to drop the attributions into the footnotes unless they're important, but my main point here is the repetition.
  • The music and sound also received praise, with Mielke likening it to the quality of Hollywood productions. Suggest "Mielke considered the music and sound to be of Hollywood production quality", or something similar; the first half of the current sentence is the paragraph topic, but I think Mielke's comment is strong enough that it can stand as the topic sentence without introduction.
  • The paragraph starting "Several critics..." has some repetitive sentence rhythms: "Key felt... Edge wrote:... Mielke concluded:".
    • I know what you mean but I don't know to fix this yet. The easy solution for this, I think, leads very quickly into purple prose. I'm already uncomfortable with the number of attribution verbs used, and I'm about to leave you a Talk page message about that "noted" you added, since I don't want to distract from the discussion here... Popcornduff (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      When we've resolved the "noted" point we can revisit this. I wouldn't hold up support over this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      How about joining the Key and Edge quotes, which are both very positive, with some appropriate connective tissue? That would be easier with Key as the second quote, since Edge is a magazine and Key is a person. Maybe: 'Edge wrote: "It's a tragedy that the Saturn's standing will ensure Team Andromeda's adventure, with a radically different approach to FFVII, will enjoy a fraction of its rival's success", and Key was also impressed, arguing that if the game were released on PlayStation it would "fly off the shelves".' Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • and illustrated why the Saturn was seen as lacking compared to PlayStation: not very fluid. How about: "and illustrated the Saturn's shortcomings, compared to PlayStation"?

Overall this is very clean, and I expect to support once these points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Meant to come back to this a few days ago; this is FA quality now. I had a couple of remaining points under discussion but both were very minor and don't affect my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor edit

  • "The player controls Edge, a young mercenary who battles an empire on a flying dragon and encounters a mysterious girl from a vanished civilization." - I think this could be reworded to make it more clear; how does he battle "an empire" (I think you mean the forces of an empire), and right now I read it as "an empire on a flying dragon", which made the actual meaning even more ambiguous
  • "Battles mix real-time and turn-based elements,[4] with three action gauges that charge in real time." - bit jargon-y, any way you could clarify what some of these terms mean?
  • "Changing position temporarily stops the gauges charging." - need a from between gauges and charging, I think
  • "he discovers a girl buried in a wall." - doesn't buried imply that she's dead?
    • Um, she kind of is at that point. At this point in the story, we don't know if she's dead, in suspended animation, or if she's actually human at all, or what. Popcornduff (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a few comments to start. Still have to get through everything after the plot. Looks good so far. ceranthor 20:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "with a team of about 40, twice that of the Zwei team.[9] Both teams used the Zwei engine" - too many teams in close proximity
  • "development proceeded quickly and some staff were moved to help complete Zwei.[4]" - nitpick, but I'd like to add an "around" after moved
    • If it's all right with you, I'm going to ignore this nitpick, because I think the "around" would not only add an unnecessary word but connote a different meaning. To me "moved around" suggests a temporary change, or like they were moved several times to various places. Popcornduff (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sega estimated that the game's script amounted to over 1,500 pages of Japanese text" - more than, not over
    • Done (though I've never bought the "more than/over" complaints - and did you know the AP recently announced they're cool with it now? Bombshell!) Popcornduff (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did, although like a professor who still refuses to allow split infinitives, I haven't yet come around to accepting it just because the AP has caved! ;) ceranthor 03:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "support free exploration, battle sequences, and real-time morphing and shading." - elsewhere you haven't used the serial comma; stay consistent throughout the article!
    • This was done to avoid confusion with the two "ands" at the end. Popcornduff (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In January 2018, an anniversary edition of the soundtrack, Resurrection: Panzer Dragoon Saga, will be issued by Brave Wave Productions on CD, vinyl and download formats.[15] " - this should be tweaked, seeing as January is practically over
    • Yep... was waiting until today to update this. Done. Popcornduff (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of the greatest games crafted by human hands" - have there been any that weren't made by human hands, though? Not really sure what this quote adds...
    • Exactly the same thought occurred to me when I added the quote - just a clumsy way to say "one of the best games ever made", isn't it? I've paraphrased to that effect now. Popcornduff (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "used copies sold for around US$300" - close to or about, not around
  • "which went on to develop the final Panzer Dragoon game, Panzer Dragoon Orta (2002), for Xbox.[4]" - always think "went on to" is redundant - better as just "later developed" or even "developed"
    • Excellent point, should have seen this myself. Fixed. Popcornduff (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Besides my nitpicks above, this is very engaging and well-written. Support on 1a. ceranthor 02:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber edit

Taking a look now...

  • I wouldn't link mutinous.

...actually can't find anything else to complain about WRT comprehensiveness and prose, so all good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47 edit

  • For this part (Two staff died during development,) in the lead, I think that “two staff members” would sound more complete as opposed to just “two staff”. I would also change the same part in the “Development” section.
    • Not done, sorry. "Staff" is a slightly tricky word when it comes to plurals, but writing "two staff", "three staff" etc is correct and clear. If you really think it's weird you could talk me out of it, but I hate adding unnecessary words. Popcornduff (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will leave this up to you as it is your nomination and it most likely just boils down to a stylistic choice. I have never heard of "staff" being used in this way though (i.e. staff with a number attached to the beginning). I am more used to seeing it as a general term. Aoba47 (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not unusual - for example [2], [3]. But this does make me wonder if it's a British English thing? Popcornduff (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am American so it could be that. I have also not read a lit of materials that would really use the word, but whenever I run across it, it is always "X staff members" or "X members of the staff" so it just looks/reads weird to just have "X staff". Not that it is wrong, but it just does not seem right to me. Hope that makes sense. Just for clarification, I am completely fine with keeping the current phrasing in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (the game had a limited release outside Japan and sales worldwide were poor), I would say “its sales” to read more clearly.
    • Same again - I don't think this adds anything or makes it significantly clearer. Popcornduff (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are going to link dragon in the lead, then I would link it in its first use in the body of the article as well for consistency.
  • I am confused by this part (the player controls Edge, a young mercenary who becomes a dragon) as the rest of the article make it sound more like Edge rides a dragon as opposed to becoming a dragon.
    • Embarrassing mistake I added in a recent edit. Thanks for catching it. Popcornduff (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please add NPC in parenthesis following the first mention of the concept non-player characters as you use the abbreviation without fully defining it.
  • ”Cutscenes” is linked multiple times in the article.
  • I may be missing it, but I do not believe that “Sega” is linked in the body of the article.
  • I would link “JRPG”.

Wonderful work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide some comments on my current FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All Souls (TV series)/archive1) if possible. Either way, I hope you are having a wonderful weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for addressing my comments; I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Deckiller edit

I'm mostly neutral, leaning toward weak oppose. Weak support—it's not bad, but the gameplay section feels vague and stilted—I feel it could be better worded throughout, ideally by someone with fresh eyes who has played the game. I took a pass at it but didn't want to change the meaning of anything. Also, is there any more information about this game in primary/secondary sources? It feels like it's missing some details, mostly in the creation of the story, setting, and characters. The legacy and release sections were quite short, so I did some slight reorganization to satisfy criterion 2b. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 09:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay section is probably fine now. However, I would love to see more information about the creation of the cast and setting, if possible. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 09:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've read every source out there about this game, at least in English, and some in Japanese, too. There's no more information to be added about the development. If you think that means there isn't enough information to take the article to FA, so be it. Popcornduff (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll certainly take your word on it. The article is comprehensive enough on the surface (criterion 1b); as long as you've already conducted a complete survey of the relevant literature (1c) then we're good to go in that regard. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 10:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I take writing seriously, so any examples of the prose being "vague and stilted" I am interested in hearing. Thanks. Popcornduff (talk) 10:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine in its current form. The problem with gameplay sections is that we have to convey a lot of complex and interrelated concepts. Some sentences had a ton of small clauses separated by commas; it just felt off. It's mostly a matter of stylistic differences. When I used to write gameplay sections, I thought I had no choice but to resort to that kind of writing style; I eventually felt a little more comfortable by expanding the section a bit and letting it "breathe" naturally. It's fine as is, I think, especially since you have demonstrated command of the language as well as clear intent with each contested edit. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 10:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. BTW, the stuff about Orta was in the Development section way back when I first wrote the article, but the editor who reviewed it for GA moved it to Legacy. That's the circle of life, I guess. Popcornduff (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—seems ready to go, and any issues I had were justified by the nominator in edit summaries. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 15:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Red Phoenix talk edit

I hadn't seen an image or source review on this yet, so I thought I would pitch in with those.

Images:

  • File:PanzerDragoonSagaBox.jpg - Especially since this is a copyrighted, fair-use image, the infobox needs more filling out. This will help to ensure the image meets WP:NFCC. Let's start by filling in all the boxes with accurate information, and being specific; "Illustration" is a poor rationale but "To illustrate the video game described in the article" is better.
  • Thanks. I never think about image stuff. I filled the boxes using the Ocarina of Time info as a template. I don't know what the source for the image was, though, because it was uploaded by someone else years ago... Popcornduff (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Pds screen.jpg - Good. Use the infobox here for an example of what's needed on the box art rationale.
  • File:Sega-Saturn-Console-Set-Mk2.jpg - Good. An Evan-Amos work, he's known for free-use images.

Sources - spotchecks not done:

    1. 2: URL says: "Panzer Dragoon Saga Review | Edge Online". Is Edge Online the website? It shouldn't be in the title linked with the URL if it is.
    1. 13: What makes rpgfan.net a reliable source? I looked through it and couldn't find anything about who actually publishes it or how they may have a reputation for fact-checking.
  • I thought the same thing when I found the source, but it's listed as reliable on WP:VG/S, so I assumed it was trusted? Popcornduff (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    1. 27: G4 reference is a little bare, and I can't get it to pull up to check it. Can an archived version be provided? Right now I'm getting nothing of the source, just a blank G4 home page.
  • Got a version from Wayback, but I can't find anything on the original page about the authors or even the date beyond 2012 (from the copyright). It's not an essential source so can be cut if it doesn't make the grade. Popcornduff (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 32: What makes NowGamer a reliable source? Can't find publishing info here either, and it's not listed at WP:VG/RS, so I don't know here.
  • Overall: I would personally suggest as an improvement to the sources here or on any article to note the publisher as well whenever possible. For instance, #24 is Retro Gamer, which is published by Imagine Publishing. IGN is published by Ziff Davis. It may seem like nitpicking, but it's very helpful for establishing a source as reliable to our readers.
  • Red Phoenix: Do you have any advice for how to determine the publisher of a source? I'm not sure where to look for this information. Popcornduff (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely. There will be some instances you won't get one (namely for more unusual sources like RPGFan), but usually you can. For starters, big name magazines and websites that have articles on Wikipedia will have the publisher listed in the article, which is pretty helpful. There are only a few really big names that do this kind of publishing, so look and see if your websites' articles about them have the publisher. For other sites that don't have a Wikipedia page about them, check to see if there's an "About Us" link off their home page. This will usually list the publisher, or check the bottom of the main page to see who has copyrighted the material; it's listed there sometimes as well. Red Phoenix talk 15:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • All right, I've filled the publishers in as best I can. Popcornduff (talk) 10:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still some work to do here. Red Phoenix talk 02:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support on images and sources. I went back and did a few more tweaks myself, as well as ran a bot to archive all the internet sources and preserve the material, preventing link rot in the future. I think the references look a lot more professional and are all sourced to reliable sources, and I confirmed that fair use rationales on the images have been repaired. Well done! Red Phoenix talk 15:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updating... edit

Thanks to all who've contributed to the review so far. However, after years of nothing, a couple of new articles have cropped out about this game all of a sudden, I guess because of its 20th anniversary, so I'd like to integrate that new information into the article. It might need to be reviewed again afterwards... it'll take me a few days to get round to updating it anyway. Popcornduff (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, there's no problem with leaving this open a little longer. Sarastro (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • There are three date formats in use in the sources: 4 April 2013, June 22, 2005 and 1999-08-29, and June 5, 1998 used in the infobox (for the release dates). These should be standardised. - SchroCat (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done TarkusABtalk 22:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Popcornduff (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: The nominator has asked to withdraw this nomination because it has changed considerably since the first reviewers supported it. It was the nominator who realised that changes need to be made, it was not a requirement of this review. Because this FAC had considerable support before changes were made, and in the interests of simplicity, it is easier to restart than to make this page longer and more complicated. Therefore the nominator has dispensation to immediately renominate this article at FAC without the usual two-week wait, and should feel free to ping the previous reviewers with a neutrally worded notice that the nomination has restarted. Sarastro (talk) 16:44, 2 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Panzer_Dragoon_Saga/archive1&oldid=828501486"