Talk:Final Fantasy V/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Prose concerns

• From the lead: These Crystals act as a seal on Exdeath, an evil sorcerer who once threatened their world. → whose world? Rewrite to make more specific.
  • Tweaked it, removed the world bit and left it at "an evil sorcerer". Looks better now.
• The first paragraph in the Story subsection is too long. Paragraphs that are too long trail off and distract the reader. They need to be split up into smaller paragraphs (the aim should be between four and seven sentences total).
• From the Story subsection: They eventually learn the crystals are a seal binding the warlock Exdeath, who was once bent on destroying their world. → Who? The crystals or Exdeath? Rewrite to clarify.
• However, the warriors are blown to a distant continent when a barrier is activated during their escape. Thanks to Krile and other new allies, they make their way to Bal Castle, Galuf's kingdom. → I don't know what it is (perhaps peacockery or maybe in-universe drabble), but I'm not jiving well with these two sentences.
• From the Reception and Legacy section: IGN noted Final Fantasy V's graphics as "dated", but cited "incredibly engrossing" job system as the game's highlight, and further praised its music. → The comma placement makes no sense here and is grammatically incorrect. I think the only way I can see to correct this is to split this into two sentences, unless you know of a better way.
• They further noted that the while the game's characters seemed unlikable and that the plot felt "predictable or trite", both were superior to many of today's games,... → It's the passive voice after the comma that needs to be addressed; it doesn't read that the reviewers said that the game is superior. Rewrite that portion in active voice.
• The first three sentences in the Sequel subsection are written in passive voice. Rewrite in active voice.

MOS concerns

• Usage of the word "note": The word "note" is used throughout the Reception and Legacy section and should be substituted for something else more neutral per the words to avoid (WP:SAY) guideline, as usage of the word in this context suggest authoritativeness, which takes away on neutrality.
• Usage of the word "however" to editorialize: From the Reception and Legacy section: However, GameDaily gave the game a score of 7/10,... → "however" is being used to editorialize (see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#However, although, whereas, despite; the other occurrence in the Plot section seems OK as it's not used for that purpose). Rewrite without using that or other words to avoid listed in that guideline.

Verifability/OR concerns

• In the Characters subsection, do the sources (the strategy guides, which I do not have either) mentioned back the following statements? (I ask because one would not normally find such information in such strategy guides)
  • Final Fantasy V features five player characters, only four of which are playable at a given time.
  • (keeping the series tradition of having a character named Cid)
  • One of Exdeath's henchmen, Gilgamesh, is a recurring mini-boss, who would later appear in other games such as Final Fantasy VIII and Final Fantasy XII.
• Referencing in the Plot section needs to be improved a bit more. For instance, I cannot see how references 11 (just partly), 12, 15, 17, 18, 19, and 20 (all quotes straight from the game) adequately back all of the content given. While the content is written fine according to the writing about fiction guideline, I think the content given within those references go past what the sources give, basically showing original research. As I mentioned in the GAR (Talk:Final Fantasy V/GA1), it might help that the Plot section be trimmed down a bit, which may help remove some of the OR in there and preserve balance with the rest of the content in the article.

Other comments

• Remember that if the information is already cited in the body of the article, then it is not necessary to cite them again in the lead.
  • Thanks, I was unsure about that...had it arise with MissingNo. not too long ago where that GAN reviewer insisted I put the sources in the lead as well.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • No, as long as they are reliably cited in the body of the article, it's OK. In fact, some FARC reviewers can and do oppose on the account of the presence of citations in the lead (with the exception of quotes, of course) as citations in the lead are not aesthetically pleasing to readers' eyes upon first glance of the article. MuZemike 18:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• I don't know if it fits in the article, but having played the SNES fan translation, the PS1 version, and the GBA versions all the way through and being very cognizant of the differences in terminologies used amongst different versions, it may help to include the different terminology used in that version; for instance "The Rift" in other versions of FFV was called the "Cleft of Dimensions" in the fan translation (and I think it was called something even different in the GBA versions, I want to say "Interdimensional Rift", but not having the game on me right now, I'm not certain).
• We no longer link dates that are not relevant to the article (which in this article, there should be none which are relevant). I saw and removed many linked dates in the citations, but I'll take a deeper look at citation structure later; just wanted to comment on that right now.
• I think we would do without a couple of section headings, as WP:LAYOUT discourages usage of sections or subsections for content that only comprises of a single paragraph. For instance, I would argue that the "Active Time Battle", "Early localization...", the subsections of the Re-releases section are not necessary. That can be discussed later on as to how to approach that.

Discussion

I'm up to the Plot section right now in my comb-through of the article. My notebook is starting to run out of juice, so I'll have to pick this review up a little later. MuZemike 17:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I will have to pick up this review in about three days from now as I will shortly be taking my 4th of July wikibreak, unless someone else would like to finish, then I don't have a problem. MuZemike 02:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Completed (hopefully) review. See additional concerns noted above in their separate sections. GAN placed on hold until the necessary corrections can be made. Feel free to ask any questions and/or discuss if need be. MuZemike 18:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Tackled almost everything here. I don't think it's going to do much good for causal readers to mention the different translations for the Rift...it's a lot like the whole thing with fan translations of FF6 using "Spirit Beasts" vs. Espers or Shogun vs. General: one's more exact to the original japanese, but that's about it. It gets more confusing when in FF8 Gilgamesh calls it "dimensional interval". Yeah it's a can of worms.

I trimmed the plot down some, but really the rest could be verified short of the game's ending with the player's guide and any finer details with the game itself. Is it really necessary to cite the hell out of the plot for GA though? I can't trim it down too much more without loss of content (it's down to three paragraphs).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Passed. The Story subsection is good enough. Good work, MuZemike 16:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)