Wikipedia:Featured article review/Final Fantasy IV/archive2
- 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 removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:40, 11 September 2009 [1].
Final Fantasy IV edit
Review commentary edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
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 substantially lower. Here are my concerns:
- The lead contains refs which is unnecessary as per WP:LEADCITE if the information is cited in the body, which it is. Common terms and unnecessary links must also be removed, e.g. 1991 in video gaming and North America. Also, I don't know if it's necessary to include refs in the infobox; most video game articles don't.
- I removed the citations from the lead and I took out the 1991 in video gaming and the North America wikilinks. I'm not familiar enough with the infobox policy, so I'll leave it be for now and let another editor take care of it. -- Nomader (Talk) 16:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The gameplay section has a few uncited statements, and the last paragraph is only two sentences; it should be merged into another paragraph.
- The story section is tagged with {{plot}}, and is in serious need of a good trimming. Eight full paragraphs of plot information is unacceptable.
- The development section is very sparse, with most of the information pertaining to music. An FA cannot simply have three sentences of development information.
- The Versions and re-releases section is very long and hard to read as a lot of the content is undue weight. The section needs to be trimmed down a la FF1#Versions and re-releases for better readability. The section also has a {{fact}} tag in it.
- The reception section needs to be expanded. As it's an old game it may be hard to find ample reviews, but it should be possible. Using LexisNexis may be a good idea for finding reviews in news papers and magazines. Something along the lines of Final Fantasy V#Reception and legacy would be good.
- The Merchandise section is only one sentence. Either expand the section or merge it into reception as Legacy.
- If the reception section gets changed to Reception and legacy, consider merging the Sequel section as well as it's only a paragraph of information.
- There are some unreliable sources used as refs. Examples:
Siliconera.com, Chudah's Corner, FFCompendium, and Final Fantasy Neoseeker. These refs need to bee replaced by reliable sources. Also, the last two refs aren't formatted properly as they lack publisher and accessdate information.
As it stands now, I think the article fails the FA requirements and needs substantial work to amend the issues I've listed. The Prince (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Siliconera is owned by Crave Online, so it should be fine as a source. The others though are another story.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've stricken Siliconera. The Prince (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the unreliable sources, I changed the publisher in Chudah's Corner to Square, which originally published the liner notes in the soundtrack (which is the real object being cited), and left the url to Chudah's Corner as a convenience translation (which is acceptable in WP:VG, since as in this case, a lot of good information is in Japanese, and readers enjoy being able to read a translation at leisure). The things FFCompendium and Neoseeker are citing seem like they could stand without references, so someone can remove those. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 17:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Formatted those last 2 refs. --PresN 19:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agree with the above comments by Prince. Examples:
- The "Plot" section, with its three subsections (Setting, Characters, Story) is way too long and mind-numbingly complex for the general reader who may not be familiar with it. Needs to be more succinct.
- The "Development" section, normally one of the most crucial in game article, is extremely sparse and does not set the stage. The reader learns nothing about the people behind the games development, or the process, relationship to other games, etc. (other than the info regarding the audio).
- The "Versions and re-releases" section is very long and detailed; it overwhelms the rest of the article.
- "Merchandise" should be removed or added to, as it has and {{expand}} tag.
- Just curious what this means: one of the sources says, " All in all, Final Fantasy IV is a solid and ground-breaking RPG, which also brought about the end of an era in gaming."[2] What end of an era did it bring about? Perhaps more is needed as to the game's place in game history. —mattisse (Talk) 16:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary edit
- Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, focus, structure, balance. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Concerns have not been addressed. The Prince (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per the concerns raised above, particularly those about low-quality citations. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:09, 29 August 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.