Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Final Fantasy IX

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

Final Fantasy IX

edit

This article is a self nomination. I've been tidying it up for a few weeks and I believe it is FA quality, like the other articles in the Final Fantasy series (i.e. FFVI, FFIV, FFVII, FFVIII, FFX, FFX-2 and FFXII). There is also a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Final Fantasy IX/archive1. One of the best game articles and certainly one of the best of Wikipedia. Sjones23 11:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination—while I think this is a day or two too early, as one of the primary writers of the article, I can't oppose. — Deckiller 12:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll archive the peer review as per WP:PR. Sjones23 15:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I take a break for a few days and you not only discuss but implement an early FAC without me? SHAME ON YOU ALL! I've had my eye on this article for a while and I really believe it is one of the best that Wikipedia has to offer. --ΔαίδαλοςΣ 19:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I've implemented an early FAC without you, Daedalus, I apologize. Greg Jones II (Sjones23) 19:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'm the one who chose to take the break when I did.  ;) --ΔαίδαλοςΣ 19:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. ;) Any other issues left in order for it to become an FA? Greg Jones II (Sjones23) 20:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Looks awesome! One concern- at the very end of the article, it's talking about how the PlayOnline strategy guide site doesn't exist, and mentions that a link to the backup of it is included in the reference - I'm a bit uneasy about a self-referential statement like that. Not even close to enough to oppose, though. Good job, all! --PresN 20:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True or not, saying that it is "severely hidden" seems a little POV to me, so I removed that and the self-referential bit. The reference tag linking to the reflist containing the link should be all the direction that one would need if they wish to study further or to find the new location. --ΔαίδαλοςΣ 22:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've added a hidden warning to the top of the plot, warning people not to add unneccesary info, including spoiler tags, to the plot. This should stop many new users from doing so. :D Greg Jones II 20:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For. Lookin' through the article; see nothing wrong with it. Looks well sourced, the prose looks fine (then again, I'm not looking for any kinks). I'll take another look tomorrow, but as of now you guys looked like you did it again. --Sir Crazyswordsman 03:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - I noticed a few minor things I want to fix up, but have two questions first - is there a preferred way that you'd like the accessdates to be formatted? YYYY-MM-DD good? Second question - is there a particular preference for how you handle work/publisher in the refs? Sometimes you link to the article, sometimes you external link, etc. Any particular preferred way of doing this? --- RockMFR 03:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The inconsistency is probably because there were three primary editors working on those last three sections (Blue, Teggles, and myself); the other two guys usually use the links, but I don't. They can probably should added for consistency. — Deckiller 03:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another comment - Mognet is linked a few times throughout the article, but links to an article that does not mention Mognet at all. This is a tad confusing. --- RockMFR 03:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Well written article, sound throughout, with adequate sourcing. -- Elaich talk 05:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite there. I've got a few easily fixable qualms, as usual.
    1. Some of the fair-use rationales for the images aren't very rational. Image:Ff9 strategyguide scan.png in particular has a rationale that has nothing to do with the image. This seems to be a templating issue; the coyp-paste text isn't always relevant.
    2. There's a handful of unusual words used incorrectly. "synonymous(?) with Final Fantasy VII's Gaia, but not the same world" and "Final Fantasy IX was also the benchmark(?) of Square's interactive PlayOnline service" jump out at me. I think it needs a bit more copyediting.
      Similarly, "Uematsu was twice reported claiming without hesitation that Final Fantasy IX is his favorite score." Unless Final Fantasy IX is also the name of the game's score, then this needs to be rephrased.
    3. The huge and ugly score table in Final Fantasy IX#Reception and criticism is probably unnecessary; the reviews' text speaks for itself, so there's no need to focus on the scores over the actual reviews.
    4. Is RPGFan a reliable source? I'm gonna leave this to those who know it a bit better, but I'm of two minds.
    5. This is a Japanese game, and its release in Japan was a big deal. Where's the Japanese critical reception? The only thing I see was a fan poll six years after the fact in Famitsu.
    6. The last paragraph of the criticism section seems to be a bunch of random, unrelated stuff crammed together in a lump. It could stand to be rewritten.
    7. The bulk of the images could stand to be reduced in size, to close to or exactly the size used in the article. The game and soundtrack covers in particular need to be reduced.
    There's still some work that needs to be done. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • #1 has been fixed, and I reworded the problem with the "favorite score" sentence. #3 is a non-issue, I would say, considering it's used in other featured articles for video games. #4, regarding RPGFan, the site is very likely a reliable source - it cites sources (when needed, obviously), was created in 1999, and has a good editorial process[1]. --Teggles 09:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RPGFan is definitely a reliable source. It is acknowledged and linked to by major official sites such as CocoeBiz. Kariteh 09:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reviews table will most likely stay per other FF FAs (although it should be reduced in size). The Japanese critical recpetion is rarely mentioned on Wikipedia gaming articles due to translation issues (famitsu is about as good as one can get). RPGFan is generally fine, depending on what it's being used for. I agree about the last paragraph of the reception section; the para has been split into the remainder of the section. Also, I'm not sure about the image sizes; they're all 200px, and appear to be the same size on my monitor. — Deckiller 11:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That Japanese critical reception is rarely mentioned on Wikipedia is not a good thing. It be nice to get Famitsu's score in there. As in other gaming articles, I feel the reviews box out should stay, I usually use in in articles as a reference guide to quotes in the text. For example, we read that IGN liked this and that, but filling up the prose with lots of numbers doesn't make for good reading, box outs are useful. - hahnchen 18:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The box out is completely unnnecessary. The numbers are arbitrary and meaningless without the context of the site's rating system. Moreover, the obsession with review scores seems limited to video games; do the film FAs or book FAs have tables with the various arbitrary review scores? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, but you'll see music album FAs include review scores. Game reviews have always been scored, every major source will score their game reviews. Whereas this happens less with albums, even less with films, and never for literature. You've made a point of rating systems being arbitrary, and whereas criteria must vary between publications, you've still got an idea whether that publication liked the game or not. - hahnchen 21:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need a number to tell that. You can just cite the review and its praise or criticism, like we do for everything. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The box out is clearly a subject of debate, so the issue should be canceled out from this FAC. — Deckiller 00:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wait. I didn't realize the PR was already archived. Greg Jones II 17:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Epbr123 10:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What's with the following comment in the reference section? <!--woah woah woah, this doesn't sound right...most of the audio criticism I've read has been positive. will tweak later. --> Is this still a problem? If not, or when it is fixed, I will be supporting. --Teggles 10:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure. Most of the responses found about the audio of FFIX leans more to the negative; as from the cited reviews. If there is a review that said positive things about the audio, the section can be tweaked a bit. — Bluerで す。 11:07, 23 June 2007 (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/Final_Fantasy_IX&oldid=1128425636"