Wikipedia:Peer review/Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy/archive1

Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because... I am hoping that this article will one day become a Featured Article, but that's in the future. This peer review is so people can have a look at the article and suggest any ways that it could be improved, taking into account that two of the games haven't been released in the west and one hasn't been released at all. Any/all sensible and constructive comments are wanted and appreciated.

Thanks, ProtoDrake (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments (having stumbled here from my Peer Review)

1. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
2. Checklinks tool shows a few problems throughout with links and slow links. I strongly suggest archiving as many as possible with added parameters archiveurl= and archivedate= with Internet Archive links.
3. Per WP:LEAD, consider expanding the lede intro sect, (four paragraphs), so it may function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents.
4. 1 image used in article, with appropriate fair use rationale on image page, good job there.
5. Not sure citations are needed in the lede, per WP:LEADCITE, those could all probably be removed, with a check to make sure same info is already cited lower down in main article body text.
6. Comment elements -- suggest changing sect header to simply: Themes.
7. Creation and development -- recommend making those two into smaller sub sects Creation and Development, within new larger subsect, Production.
8. In fact, you might benefit from reading WP:MOSFILM.
9. Consider cutting down total use of quotations in article, instead paraphrasing where appropriate, this will help you later down the road at WP:FAC.
10. Reception sect, missing info if any Awards / Accolades won / nominated ?
11. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Hope that's helpful, and good luck! — Cirt (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I've done most of what you cited. I even managed to archive all links and deal with the questionable link I saw. Nearly all the slower ones were IGN, and since some of the information there is exclusive to the site, there's no much I can do apart from archiving them. I also succeeded in archiving the Square Enix Blog reference. Thank you very much for your comments. I am definitely thinking of taking this article to FA at some point. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero

Post-TFA depression sucks, but maybe contributing to the improvement of someone else's hopeful FA can help me out. Of course, it isn't about me! (Wait, actually, please review Freedom Planet's PR if you can. Okay, NOW it isn't about me.) As I passed this article's GAN, obviously I'm pleased with it overall, but there are a few minor points I'd like to bring up that... may or may not have been there before.

• "The concept for the Fabula Nova Crystallis series occurred" - pick a better verb; "originated", perhaps?
• Creation is a long paragraph.
• "creating the Compilation of Final Fantasy VII " - specify what this is; contrary to intuition, it isn't a compilation but a sub-series
• Might make more sense to simply phrase it that they chose to build upon the idea of blah blah blah, which came from Compilation of Final Fantasy VII.
• Was Nojima's book ever released, or just a series bible?
• Did Final Fantasy XIII begin development before or after the concept for the FNCFF sub-series originated? "Early 2004" could be before, after, or during April. If that information's available, anyhow.
• "film franchises such as Star Wars and the Lord of the Rings film series" --> "film franchises such as Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings"
• The aggregate review score table's a little wide. Are the numbers of reviews necessary? Those aren't standard. Does the entire title of Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII (as opposed to just Lightning Returns) need to be written out? Also, unrelated to length, why are they all linked?
• I feel like the Related media section could go into a great deal more detail. I mean, we don't even know when most of these things were released or anything meaningful about the content.

This is all from a quick hop-around. If you'd like me to really dig into the prose, just ask, but I haven't got the time, energy, or alertness for that now. Tezero (talk) 05:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tezero:, Done stuff with the suggestions you gave, and was able to clarify a few points. I also left some comments on the peer review you linked. Won't try to ask you for anything in return. ;) --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)