Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask

The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask edit

The first attempt for this article to become a featured article. Peer review occurred here, and images have been given the correct rationale. The writing is as NPOV as I was capable of making it, and the sources have been referenced at their best. I'm still partially hesitant to believe that this article has truly apexed, but I suppose the votes will deliver the real consensus! —Hollow Wilerding 14:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The article is fantastic! Although I'd still recommend locating a few other references, you've done a splendid job here, Hollow! Amazing! --DrippingInk 14:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's difficult to references video games, as you may or may not know. I'll do what I can. —Hollow Wilerding 14:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good work. Could do with more references though. — Wackymacs 15:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very well done article. I was surprised that an article on a videogame was so good. - Cuivienen 15:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This article is good, but it is going to need some work before it's representative of the best WP has to offer.
  • "Gameplay" makes up nearly all of the article. There is also information in that section that does not relate to the gameplay itself, which could be moved around within the article and expanded upon. More information is needed that contextualizes the game within the Legend of Zelda universe, as well as information about the game in the real world: its production, release, impact, etc.; without this information, the article is only as comprehensive as a corresponding article at GameFAQs or IGN.
  • I believe that the comment made by Aounma is acceptable for development. —Hollow Wilerding 22:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A development category has been added to the article. —Hollow Wilerding 23:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Reviews" section is five, paragraph-long, direct quotations from four different online sources. Admittedly, it has been some years since I've taken a composition class, but I've always been taught that a quote of more than around three sentences, even when cited, is considered plagiarism. In addition, there's no only negligible mention of fan response, reaction to the game's release, or anything that wasn't cribbed verbatim from a review.
  • I retrieved fanbase comments and have added the external links that I (brilliantly...) had forgotten to include. —Hollow Wilerding 17:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead section contains facts that aren't mentioned in the article (sales figures, criticism over Expansion Pak, etc.).
  • A featured video game article, Super Mario 64, also does not contain its sales figures in the article but solely in the lead section. —Hollow Wilerding 17:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead section is a summary of the article, and as such should only contain information that is expanded upon in the article proper. Thank you, though, for pointing out the Super Mario 64 article, though, as its "Development", "Impact", and "Innovations" sections are excellent, and this article would do well to include that sort of information. -keepsleeping say what 19:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In several places, the prose of the article is overly verbose and occasionally grammatically obscure ("The player is responsible for materialising the notes. . .", ". . .the two of them challenge a number of rooms. . .", etc.). --keepsleeping say what 17:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This objection has been addressed (unless there is more). —Hollow Wilerding 18:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those weren't the only two sentences with syntax or grammar problems; they're really all over the article: "Hyrule, the kingdom that is generally accessed in The Legend of Zelda series", "a clock that visualizes the in-game time". . . it needs a good, solid copyedit. I also stand by my comment about its verbosity. --keepsleeping say what 22:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the following reasons:
*No citation given for 314,000/3,000,000 sales figure in lead. I see (non-footnoted) links at the bottom of the page which alluded to sales figures, but neither link takes me to a page with such data.
*"Its predecessor had been cited as one of the greatest games of all time, however Majora's Mask did not earn this title." Clunky writing. "This title"? That's not a title, it's an opinion.
*Also, the quote says "one of the greatest games of all time" but the link only goes to lists of the greatest video games. So has it made any lists of the greatest games of all time as claimed?
*"Nonetheless, it is one of the N64's most sold games." This is imprecise, where does it rank? (e.g. "Nonetheless, it is the N64's third-best-selling game worldwide." If the real figure is a lot lower than that, say 30th, it would be useful to note how many different games were released in total.)
*"The gameplay for The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask involves the 3D computer graphics that appeared in its predecessor The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time." Meaning that it uses the same 3D graphics technology, or that the game uses 3D graphical images drawn directly from the first game?
*"Whereas its predecessor featured items and music (in the form of an ocarina) for many of its puzzles, Majora's Mask includes multiple instruments as well as time travel and masks to add further layers of difficulty and variety to the quests in the game." I get time travel, but how do these "masks" make the newer game more complicated than the "items" they replaced? Aren't these "masks" a type of item? What was less complicated about the older game's "items"?
*"to most NPCs and enemies" To most whats and enemies?
*"The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask features the ability to use certain masks to change Link's form in one way or another." isn't this just restating what was stated earlier? That section should be moved into this one.
*"Deku Scrub" -- what's a "Scrub"? For that matter, what's a "Deku"? I see there's a link to the article "Deku" (though not "Scrub"), but a brief summary ("fish-like Deku" or whatever) would be less confusing.
*"The Deku Scrub transformation, however, will be attacked if he goes near a dog (without damage)" Does this mean the character with the Scrub transformation will not suffer damage, or that he will only be attacked if he has no damage, or that he will be attacked if a dog which he approaches is a dog without damage?
*Lots of terms like Bossa nova, scarecrow, and ocarina among others should be linked.
*"The use of masks in The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask is not the only element to reappear from Ocarina of Time" Whoa, whoa, whoa. The paragraphs above led me to believe that the addition of "masks" to the game was a notable difference. Now for the first time it is said that Masks appeared in the old game? Clarification is sorely needed.
*"...and the Blast Mask, which acts as an infinite bomb..." An infinite bomb?
*You did a good job with "Cool." If you can address the ambiguous and/or clunky prose in the article I will vote to support. Andrew Levine 19:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of your objections are amusing because I don't really see why they require correction. However, you have objected, so it's time for me to get to work. —Hollow Wilerding 22:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
*They have not. A lot of them are still confusing:
  • "The gameplay for The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask involves the 3D computer graphics that were featured in its predecessor The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time..." All that has been changed in this sentence was changing "appeared" to "were featured." I still don't understand if this means that they lifted images wholesale from the old game and put them into the new one, or if it just means that both games have "3D computer graphics."
*Not done. You still haven't clarified the sentence at all, you're just swapping out synonyms for synonyms. Andrew Levine 00:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
*The first mention of "Deku Scrub" and the other mask-forms still do not describe what they look like.
  • The wikilinks will provide images once accessed. —Hollow Wilerding 23:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
*"The Deku Scrub will not be allowed to exit Clock Town because of his age, however pay a small price on the treasure chest mini game." What?
*The issue of the Ocarina of Time being called "one of the greatest games of all time" is still unresolved. Has it ever really been called that? Or do the relevant sources just call it "one of the greatest video games of all time"? Andrew Levine 23:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You see, I don't know about this at all. Ocarina of Time has been called one of the greatest games of all time. However, this article is not about Ocarina, and therefore you should concentrate on the aspect of Majora's Mask only. —Hollow Wilerding 23:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's absurd. If the article on Telephone said "The telephone was first patented by Alexander Graham Bell, a Russian", would it be OK to leave in the factual error even though it's not directly related to the subject of the article? I am going to insert "video" into the sentence myself. Address the "3D computer graphics" problem and I'll support this article. Andrew Levine 00:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All of your concerns have been addressed! I have also added some extra wikilinks for the sake of wikilink-ing. —Hollow Wilerding 00:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. At last. This article still seems like it could be a little more informative, though I can't tell exactly where it's lacking. Andrew Levine 00:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, people who probably know more than I do about video-games have raised valid objections that need addressing. Andrew Levine 23:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why have you withdrawn your vote once again? The issues you previously raised were addressed and corrected; supporting and objecting is not about what other Wikipedians think — it's about what you think and your opinion. Since you had supported the article, you evidently felt as though that it had reached featured article status. Now you're objecting once again because you feel as though the "other Wikipedians" have raised "valid oppositions", but this is not the way you saw it before their votes. What would have occurred if they hadn't voted? Please think this over, although your vote is appreciated nonetheless. —Hollow Wilerding 02:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Anyone can change their vote for any reason they feel is valid, and if other FA reviewers point out things that I missed, that's good cause indeed. As it happens, I think the article has now (in the past few hours) been improved enough for me to support it again, at least until further objections are raised. Andrew Levine 06:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Not all peer review comments have been addressed.
    • There is still not an in-depth section on the use of a three day cycle and time travel. This is the most interesting aspect of the gameplay, so it deserves more attention.
      • I'd love to improve on this section, but I doubt that's going to be happening, because the information present in the "Gameplay" section consists of what the basis the time travel and three-day cycle feature in Majora. —Hollow Wilerding 20:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Development" and "Reviews" sections contain mostly quotes, which does not qualify as brilliant prose. If you need to quote, pick out what is most essential or cannot be expressed accurately otherwise; describe and summarize the rest. Further, reviews aren't particularly selectively chosen. "The game received a mixed reception from MasterGamer reviewer Jimmy Payne" -- Jimmy who? Find out what magazines like Edge and Famitsu said of the game instead. If you are using his opinion to illustrate a point, start with the point instead. Fredrik | tc 11:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • More on development:
    • There's no mention of the original 64DD "Ura Zelda" confusion, the older title "Zelda: Gaiden" and the Japanese "Mask of Mujula".
      • Huh? —Hollow Wilerding 20:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nintendo was at a time working on "Ura Zelda" which was supposed to be a 64DD expansion of Ocarina of Time. Then they announced "Zelda: Gaiden" which later became Majora's Mask; I don't remember the details, but there was confusion regarding whether they were separate games or one evolved into the other. This should be explained in the article, I think. "Mask of Mujula" is the Japanese title, and I think it was the English title as well as some point, but my memory may fail me here. The IGN stories linked below should have details if you search them. Fredrik | tc 20:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was never even aware of this. —Hollow Wilerding 21:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The development section should also mention significant events from the development history such as when the first screenshots were released (and if they differ from the final game) and that it was first presented in a playable version at Space World 1999. Lots of info at IGN[1]. It would also be extremely nice (but not necessary) to have a screenshot from a development version, if you can find one that differs from the final game and isn't watermarked. - Fredrik | tc 11:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, good, finally something useful. I hadn't been able to locate a website with good information. —Hollow Wilerding 20:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, IGN is a goldmine for historical information about CVGs from the last six years. Fredrik | tc 20:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I've added detail to the article. Are there some points that you might want to scratch (so to not confuse me while addressing subsequent objections)? —Hollow Wilerding 21:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think most points have not been addressed entirely. Anyway, I also think there is room for some structural improvement, but trying to express what I'm thinking of here wouldn't be fruitful; I would prefer to do the editing myself. This would require time and concentration which I can't spare at the moment as I am busy studying for two exams. I will likely have time Thursday or Friday, if you don't mind waiting (the FAC nomination time won't have run out by then). I might also be able to record a gameplay demonstration video. Fredrik | tc 22:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If Raul654 agrees to leave the nomination running for a little bit longer than usual, then your participation, Fredik would be fascinating! Thank you for your contributions. —Hollow Wilerding 22:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - MasterGamer Jimmy Payne?! I'm not too familiar with game revolution but it looks alright. Gamespot is good enough. If you get rid of the master gamer reference and get a mainstream one in, I'd probably support it, althought I haven't properly read through the whole thing yet. If you managed to get a translation of the Japanese Famitsu's review, that'd be very impressive and give a more global view. You can try metacritic, and if you ask at WP:CVG, you'll have access to Electronic Gaming Monthly and Nintendo Power print reviews, which won't be web archived. - Hahnchen 00:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't believe that Wikipedians should be opposing based on the quantity of the reviewer. But I'll change it immediately. —Hollow Wilerding 01:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support - Yeah, it's better. But I still haven't properly read through it yet, but it looks good, unless I see some glaring errors or omission, it'll stay at support. NB It's not quantity of the reviewer, it's the quality. I noticed that Fredik also mentioned Famitsu and Edge, these reviews are a lot more respected in the gaming community then Johnny Payne. Another reason why I like print publications mentioned, is that anyone can just google search for reviews and get a handful, but if wikipedia had print references, then it's something which the rest of the net doesn't. - Hahnchen 01:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like your thinking — it's very out of the box. Perhaps I'll begin searching for old editions of Nintendo Power. They shouldn't be too difficult to locate with the mulitple students I teach being obsessed with Nintendo-related video games. Thanks for your support! —Hollow Wilerding 01:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - It is a great article, with plenty of great screenshots (not sure how comfortable I am with the "fair use" claimed here, but...) This article doesn't seem to be adequately referenced. Sure the one link [2] is great, however I could not find any mention in any of the references, for instance, to support the following statement made in the article:
The appearance of Fierce Deity Link is very similar to Adult Link from Ocarina of Time, and is based on the mesh of Adult Link from the same video game.
A great effort, but where is this information coming from? How much other information in this article is from a source that's not referenced? How should we verify the correctness of the article? - JustinWick 02:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your opposition, but many have to understand that it is very difficult to reference a video game article, considering most of the information is added from users who have played the game; they materialize the article. So it isn't a simple task. I'll remove that information for the sake of addressing your vote. —Hollow Wilerding 22:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not reference the official walkthrough at [3]? - Fredrik | tc 14:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, I am not aware of how to reference that in correct format, but for now I will place it in the article. Oh, for User:Fredrik, you mentioned writing some of the article earlier this week. Will you be starting this in the near future? —Hollow Wilerding 02:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now it appears you've logged off of Wikipedia. See you later, M. —Hollow Wilerding 23:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Fair use rationale for screenshots in order. Good notes / references. Well done! Jacoplane 02:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object per Hahnchen; needs to reference the reviews from the major print sources. Let me know. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did add a review from Famitsu. I believe retrieving their score for Majora's Mask is acceptable — Nintendo Power and other magazines are not easy to retrieve; if they were a walk in the park, they would be inducted into the article. —Hollow Wilerding 01:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, if the magazines aren't available, how about some other print sources? Have you checked what's available on LexisNexis? Overall, it would be nice if the article incorporated more information that's not freely available elsewhere on the Web. The removal of the Amazon reviews was also a big help though. Opposition withdrawn. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good article with what looks like all the qualities of a featured article. -- RattleMan 02:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To any users who have opposed this nomination, please readdress your votes, especially those who did not feel as though major reviwers ha(ve)d been cited. Thanks! —Hollow Wilerding 02:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask has become a featured article! —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Legend_of_Zelda:_Majora%27s_Mask/archive1&oldid=1138473296"