Wikipedia:Peer review/Final Fantasy IV/archive1

Final Fantasy IV edit

This article has been vastly improved upon since the first of the new year, and am interested in taking this article up Feature Status on behalf of all those who have dilligently worked on this article.

What issues remain that would keep this article from being a featured article? Thanks Much! Judgesurreal777 04:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Judge, I intended to give this a proper peer review (hopefully) tomorrow, but I'll mention a few things here for the mean time:

~~Most important: more references!~~
~~The ikelley reference is pretty weak, can you find a better source?~~
The "White Wolf" reference isn't really needed unless it contains something you're using that's not listed in the game's credits. It might not hurt to keep it as an ext. link, though. And why does it say "White Wolf"?
~~Add fair use rationale to all images.~~
- I have added fair use rational as best I could. They are based on the ones I created for the Final Fantasy VI peer review. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 23:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~I don't see any need to bold character names, it's distracting.~~
- I've removed the emboldening. >Gamemaker 17:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Work the important trivia points into the main prose and delete the rest.~~
~~Are those large boxes at the head of each version pretty accepted? They seem like a little overkill..~~ This will also get slammed in FAC for having too many fair use images.
~~The bulleted lists of changes should be rewritten as prose. I notice one bullet says "New events" — that's not very informative to the reader.~~

Pagra shtak 05:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its a great article, certainly a favorite game of mine. A couple of comments:

*More references

Further reading if possible. There must be some books out there devoted to the art of these excellent games.
- There do not appear any books in print that I can find about Final Fantasy IV artwork in particular, though there are others of the later games Judgesurreal777 06:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*I would like to see some further information about the fantastic music of this game, which has been recorded by other various artists I believe

Over use of brakets. I don't believe examples have to be in brackets. For example, tt would be less jarring to read

In the original game, almost every status ailment and a corresponding item used to cure it. For example, Petrification and Poison would be cured by "Golden Needle" and "Antidote" respectively.

- Please let me know if there are any other brackets that break up the text, I have eliminated about 3/4th of them. Judgesurreal777 01:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article though, I enjoy all the pictures and details. joshbuddy^talk 02:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thus far, References cleaned up, character names debolded, trivia incorporated, boxes deboxed, paragraphs de-listed. If anyone has any Final Fantasy art books are other things let me know! Judgesurreal777 22:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is starting to look really good. It's come such a long way since the new year. Two things I'd really like to see are...

Expand the music section. I don't know how much that can be done without being too crufty. But if nothing more than a sentence can be written about it, I don't think it really deserves it's own subsection.
While I do think it's a good idea to display the various versions' respective box art, at some parts of the page, it looks very cluttered. The images should be made smaller and displayed in a more effective way.

Otherwise, it looks great! — warpedmirror (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hibana and myself worked on trimming the story a couple weeks ago. Do you think it needs expansion/more trimming/copyedit? Deckiller 22:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, I think a once over of the article text as a whole to check for readability since it has been much changed in the last 48 hours to comply with the peer review. Also, could we check about the fair use rationale? I added links at the bottom of the page to the rationals, and all of them have explainations on their image pages, is that sufficient?Judgesurreal777 23:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I like that the different versions section has been split into its own article, since I think it decontextualizes the information. Moreover, moving that information away has removed most of the release information for the remakes. I'd like to see that information restored to the article in some fashion (preferably without having to shoehorn it all into the main infobox), and preferably in a quick-reference format, since all searches for these remakes (such as Final Fantasy IV Advance) are going to lead directly to this article. Either a table like this, or via "stacked" infoboxes like here. I personally prefer the latter, since I think the former is a bit of an ugly space-waster, but provided the information gets presented in some format, I'm not overly bothered. – Seancdaug 05:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I just wanted to shrink that section down, it was enormous. :) Could we go with the former setup? I agree it looks much better. Judgesurreal777 05:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we must, I suppose <grin>. I really loathe those big horizontal tables from a design perspective, since they tend to grow very large and very unwieldy, and interrupt the flow of the page. But I've had this argument with other editors in the past, and I think I'm in the minority. Again, the most important part is that the information be there in some form or another. – Seancdaug 05:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, I insist you do it YOUR way! :) I see your point, it is getting to be a very good looking entry, wouldn't want to uglify it! lol Judgesurreal777 05:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thus far we have addressed every issue except:

Add a game version chart, possibly delete List of versions page
Check on parentheses use, size of music section, number of pictures, fair use rationale.

ANYTHING ELSE? :) Judgesurreal777 23:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call me crazy, but I may want to trim the story even further, perhaps by 3-4 sentences. Anyone agree? Deckiller 22:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd trim it down by two or three paragraphs, myself, particularly if previous experience with the failed Final Fantasy VI FAC means anything. This much information on the fictional aspects of the game is liable to derail attempts to raise the article to featured status. – Seancdaug 02:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. Deckiller 02:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably remove the ending paragraph, to free up space and all. Deckiller 02:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're making some good progress on the story, Deckiller. If possible, could you rewrite the first paragraph to create a spoiler-free paragraph that could be placed above the spoiler warning? Pagra shtak 02:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ^_^. Do you think it should include some of the info already in the first paragraph, up to, say, the whole Village of Mist incident? Deckiller 02:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to add this but got an edit conflict: I think anything before the destruction of Mist could safely come before the spoiler warning. Pagra shtak 03:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does the story look now? Deckiller 03:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After a strong look, and various writing edits, does it look good? Everything ready for a Featured Article Submission? Speak now! And then, vote for it to be one if you are satisfied :) Judgesurreal777 01:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's wise to jump immediately into an FA submission, actually: part of the criteria for featured status is that the article be stable. In light of the massive changes resulting from this peer review, the article is not particularly stable at this point. I think we've got a better chance if we wait (at bare minimum) a week or two and make sure that the changes are going to stick. – Seancdaug 02:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I waited about 3-4 days to get the Patriots article into FA submission; then again, the peer review was awesome, but not as extensive as this one. I'd say at least 4-5 days. Deckiller 16:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not crazy about that table in the remakes section. If you put a sidebar up on your browser, there's about one or two words per line. I think there could also be a section discussing technological improvements from the NES games (use of Mode 7 during airship flight for example?), and there should be some mention of localization/censorship in the development section. I don't think the article would pass FAC at the moment. Pagra shtak 01:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How are we doing now? I added what I could about super nintendo versus nintendo technology and its use in the game, and the other critiques seem answered.....what else do we need to do to make everyone say "Agree" when we put this up for consideration? Judgesurreal777 01:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm probably harping on this point, but while I don't think List of Final Fantasy IV versions should be a seperate article, that doesn't mean that I think the information contained within should be lost. I'd like to see it merged back into the main article, though it probably should be mercilessly edited down to a more digestable size (two or three paragraphs for each section, perhaps?). – Seancdaug 04:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great thinking, I hope someone jumps on that :D I am not the best yet at the writing aspect of Wikipedia, so if any brave soul wishes to, please go for it, we are SO close :) Judgesurreal777 04:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If no one else beats me to it, I'll see about cobbling something together this weekend. – Seancdaug 05:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, to get the release versions information, just go back in the Final Fantasy IV history, I had the versions page and the box art pages deleted as we discussed. :) Judgesurreal777 07:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]