Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess/archive1

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 not promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

---

The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

Self nomination: Since the game's relase, a lot of detail has been added to the article and there have been no major changes to the information within it for a considerable period. I think the article itself iis of an ideal length for a game of its public knowledge (at the very least in the games community) and is completely sourced wherever and whenever possible. I perosnally think that this is most definitely a piece of Wiki's finest work and I believe that it should become a FA. BigHairRef | Talk 12:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose based on a few items...
  • The Gameplay section is excessively detailed, almost to the extent of being a game guide. Basic quest items and Collectibles should probably be reduced.
  • Speaking of Gameplay, both that portion and the Plot need references. They have very few, especially the Plot portion. Take a look at other FA-class video game articles to get a feel for plot citations.
  • In Plot, the game is cited as taking place approximately 100 years after Ocarina of Time, while Development states "The game falls chronologically anywhere from 100 years to multiple centuries after Ocarina of Time". Which is it? If a specific figure can't be confirmed, it might be best not to mention this at all within the Plot portion.
  • Reception needs some criticism. Offhand, items which were pointed out in more than one review include changing Heart Pieces from 4 to 5 required for the full thing and the lack of voice acting was criticized by some people as well. Speaking of Reception, you should really reduce the size of that chart and focus more on prose. While it's fine to mention that Twilight Princess won numerous awards, the article doesn't really need to list every single one in a chart like that.
  • Image:Zelda_final_wii.jpg is listed in the article as the final screen from the Gamecube version, though the name obviously contradicts this. In addition, the source of the image is not mentioned.
  • I don't recall offhand (and you can consider this objection unactionable if I can't dig anything up), but I distinctly remember reading that one of the developers mentioned that this Zelda game would be the last, and that the next was going to be very different from what fans are used to. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article as well?
    • Reply There was a mention that the next Zelda game would be different but not the last and it didn't specify how so I don't think it'd give that much extra information at the moment. BigHairRef | Talk 22:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Alright then, struck through. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 20:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This might be a matter of personal taste, but there's really no need to link so many sites in External Links. You might wish to reduce it to the two Official sites plus the Legend of Zelda Wiki.
• If these items are addressed and the article gets a good copyedit, I'm willing to Support. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 16:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I've not actually read through it yet, but I'm pretty sure you'll have to cut down the Gameplay section. And cut down the reviews box too. - hahnchen 16:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose—1a. I agree with Hanchen that the Gameplay section and Reviews box need to be reduced. The gameplay section in particular is three times the usual Game FA length. Considering that a major overhaul of the gameplay section is needed, I'll just pull examples from the lead and story sections:
  • "Fine-tune" should be changed to "refine" or something similar.
  • "Link, the protagonist of the game, initially a rancher in a small village, travels to Hyrule, the game's setting." — choppy sentence.
  • "Twilight Princess introduces three new races: Oocca, Twili and Yeti" "New" is redundant, since the sentence already mentions that the game introduces them.
  • Last para of the lead is stubby; try to integrate it into the lead. This may require additional lead structuring. Another option is to add a couple sentences on the game's reception to that third para.
  • "When Link pursues a group of monsters who kidnapped two other villagers," of course they are "other" villagers; redundant word. Same issue might apply to the preceeding sentence and "living and working".
  • An audit is needed for spacing problems. In the first sentence of the story section, footnote 7 has a space in front of it; please check and make sure this isn't a recurring issue.
  • See also section needs pruning; generally, it should only include links not used in the article or footer template.
• These examples, aside from the formatting glitches and suggestions, indicate that the prose needs a copy-edit for redundancies. I recommend contacting the League of Copyeditors and enlisting 2-3 users for help. The article is starting to look very good, so please finish the job. — Deckiller 05:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I've made a few changes but I'm not sure thay they'll be up to what you asked for so far. There's only so much time I have unfortunately. The only thing I was struggling to find was the bit where Dekiller mentioned the links not being needed. Might just be being a bit blind but I couldn't see the bits you were referring to. Hopefully the reductions I made will have helped a little. BigHairRef | Talk 22:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment I can't support yet with so many outstanding issues, nor will I oppose based on your time constraints and work being done, but I found two more things. First, release dates should be superscript not flags, and the lead of the article doesn't summarize the article. In fact, most of the sections of the article are missing from the lead. If you haven't seen this link a thousand times, here's WP:LEAD. Clyde (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.