Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Radical Dreamers: Nusumenai Hōseki/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Radical Dreamers: Nusumenai Hōseki
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 04:36, 22 January 2008.

Radical Dreamers: Nusumenai Hōseki edit

Check external links

This has always been a good article, but was a little short. Now that it's been cleaned up and a development section has been added, it might have enough weight to match other short FAs. It's unusual for a video game article because due to the unique release and market, there's no critical review. That doesn't mean the article isn't comprehensive; take a look and I'll be happy to address concerns. Zeality (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Some things need fixing, but I've decided to oppose it for not being comprehensive, ultimately:

  • Make sure your external links adhere to WP: EL. I'd take the Mobygames link out right away.
  • Format sources consistently. One has the author "Kohler, Chris", while another has the "Adam Riley", which means the fore and sur- names are ordered differently.
  • Why have you used a Wikipedia article as a reference in ref 1?
  • It's actually a book, but the book has it's own wiki article, so it's linked. Since it's used inline though, I assume that the information was gleaned from a specific page/pages, which would be nice to add. BuddingJournalist 22:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I knew that, but the book isn't been cited, Wikipedia is. I didn't think that was allowed, especially as articles are subject to change. Why not cite the book or some other site?
  • If it is, then it's not doing it correctly as book citations don't usually have links to any websites. If the book's been cited, then why have a link to Wikipedia? Ashnard Talk Contribs 22:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I entirely understand...ref 1 currently uses citebook and doesn't link to any website outside of Wiki. The only reason it's linked to the Wiki article is because we have an article on the book...it's just a useful context link for any users that want more information. But link or no link, it's obviously citing the book (it has author, publication date, publisher, title, ISBN). For example, see Example 1 of Template:Citebook. BuddingJournalist 22:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mistake; I've just never seen it linked like that and misinterpreted it as using Wikipedia as the source as an external link. Sorry about that. Ashnard Talk Contribs 23:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to worry...I think I made a similar mistake once thinking that a TV show's references were based on a Wikipedia article, when it fact the links were just there as context links and the actual sources were the episodes themselves. BuddingJournalist 23:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some refs dates are wikilinked, while some aren't, and some don't use the full dates even when they are applicable.
  • "This marked the first time English-speaking audiences could play and comprehend the game." Needs a source. Also isn't accurate as an English-speaking person could know Japanese.
  • The use of dashes is inconsistent. Some are spaced, some aren't; some are formatted as double hyphens, while others aren't.
  • "Chrono Cross borrowed certain thematic elements, story points, characters, music, and objects introduced in Radical Dreamers — including the infiltration of Viper Manor, the Frozen Flame, the Acacia Dragoons, the name Radical Dreamers for Kid's thievery, and the characters of Kid, Lynx, and Serge (who became a silent protagonist)." Could do with a source.
  • What? No section on the characters? You could probably take this info out of plot and create a section devoted to the characters
  • "schedule did not allow him to do his best work" This should be reworded to be more concise and formal.
  • The Development is basically short, but it's just been beefed up with massive quotes to make it appear substantial.
  • The first caption shouldn't have a full stop, as it isn't a full sentence.
  • The part abput the alternative scenarios seems too crufty and unnecessary. Plus, continuous prose is preferable to bullet points. Overall, it probaly should be scrapped, with a passing reference to the fact that there are multpile scenarios.
  • I don't know why "gameplay" has been merged with "music" in the section as these are totally contrasting features of a game.
  • The gamepaly paragraphs has no references at all.
  • "The soundtrack includes ambient pieces, used to heighten suspense during the game's tense moments." Needs a source, but is a pretty weak sentence anyway.
  • Lead basically mentions nothing of gameplay or music
  • Most importantly, there is no section on "reception", which stops it from being comprehensive. I know that it was never officially released, but there still needs to be some reaction from the media about its presence.

Well done for the work so far, though. One worthy compliment I can give is that the plot section is a very good, and has a nice summary-style without being excessive. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I can take out the Mobygames link. It seems to be automatic in WP:VG to add that link, even though it usually contributes nothing. / Chris Kohler's book doesn't have to be wikilinked, but why not?
I'll pause there until I get back. One thing I'm wondering is how to use citeweb's date function to link dates without days or months. 2007-10-01 is automatically linked, but 2007-10 and 2007 are not. Using month= and year= doesn't work, either. Zeality (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Ashnard on the linking dates in references. Linking solo days or _month_ _day_ constructs is generally avoided since it adds nothing to the article. The only reason to link full dates is because of user preferences. If you're using citeweb, then you should have nothing to worry about with linking dates, as, like you said, it automatically links dates that need linking. However, Ashnard's second point seems to be valid: this source seems to provide a full publishing date, but the article only gives the month year. A trivial thing, but an easy fix. BuddingJournalist 21:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't saying that it should be done, I was just referring to the inconsistency of it. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 22:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but I was explaining that they were "inconsistent" for a reason. Full dates are generally linked while the others are not per MOS. BuddingJournalist 23:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the "marks the first time" sentence since yeah, that's probably understood without mention. // The connections to Cross are very overt (right down to the first mission in the game being the infiltration of Viper Manor), but I've added two links to help; one goes to the Chrono Compendium entry on Serge, and the other to a Gamespot editorial in 1999 noting that Chrono Cross will debut with the same protagonists that appeared in Radical Dreamers. Done for now; I'll resume when I get back. Zeality (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I made a character paragraph. // That's all I've got for the game's development. I felt that trying to put Kato's words in prose would only make things sound awkward. // The multiple scenarios wouldn't so important if they, together, probably equaled the size of the main scenario's script two times over or more. It's not like these are only multiple endings; these are virtually new stories following the gamebook concept. The bulleted list is better at communicating them compared to some unearthly, gargantuan sentence with a ton of semicolons and dashes. // I put music in its own section. My original concern was that I'd have a paragraph per heading; same reason I merged fan translation and sequels. // Concerning the music statement, it's obvious when the full soundtrack is available for perusal. There are songs consisting of nothing but wind, groans in a dungeon, machinery, quiet guitar, etc. I changed the sentence to drop the suspense assertion. // That takes care of the rest. The reception section is inactionable; there are absolutely no professional reviews for it. I've searched in Japanese as well to the best of my ability, and I can't find anything. Zeality (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be reviews, just try any media reaction or response to its existence. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"these are virtually new stories following the gamebook concept". If they're as important as you say, then why devote only a few bullet points to it? Not knowing the game, I just assumed it was trivia by the way the info was handled. Well done for the amendments do far, though. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Radical_Dreamers:_Nusumenai_Hōseki/archive1&oldid=1085530111"