Wikipedia:Featured article review/Final Fantasy X/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Joelr31 16:36, 21 December 2008 [1].

---

Final Fantasy X

Review commentary

Previous FAR

Notified User:Ryu Kaze, WP:Final Fantasy

This article has a lot of issues. Here are the highlights: several unsourced statements and the entire Sphere Grid section has no refs, an overly large storyline section, a poorly designed references Reception section, several one- or two-sentence paragraphs (WP:MOS), and several statements in the lead look like they aren't part of a general overview, as they are specific details. --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What does "a poorly designed references section" mean? It's... a reflist. There's no design. --PresN (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say "Reception" section (I was typing fast 'cause I really needed to hit the hay.) What I mean is that some scores are scattered throughout the prose, others are put into a list, making it look disorganized. --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The Development section could be expanded also. It's kind of poor for a featured article. The game is the "best game of all time" according to the Famitsu readers, and the main designers of the game are by far the most talkative people at Square Enix, so there's bound to be more information available. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there's quite a lot of development information — it's just allocated to the appropriate sections. The "development" section is for information that does not fit with the other sections. Also, you're not going to get a lot of enthusiasm for trimming the story section, as veteran editors of Wikipedia — which summarizes most of the members of the FF wikiproject — know of the constant bickering between short and comprehensive summaries. — Deckiller 00:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps in most cases the issue of short/long story sections is debatable, but it's not in this case. It contains numerous details that aren't at all necessary to demonstrate how the story works. Moreover, these excessive details hamper readability, making it nearly impossible to make sense of the game's story. --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 05:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree; the story section contains far too many details as it stands. However, unless opinion has shifted again, the WikiProject may not be willing to trim the story themselves, as they were forced to expand it to the current length in the previous review (and I believe it was even trimmed after that, against supposed advice). I'm basically retired, so I won't be able to turn this article into something that matches the norms of 2008. — Deckiller 07:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Your best bet might be to go into the edit history and find an earlier, more succinct version of the setting/characters/story sections. — Deckiller 07:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

My general experience is that the Wikiproject is ambiguous when it comes to how storylines should be covered. I try to clarify that an issue exists with the total style of the summary in reviews, yet users often try to resolve such concerns by removing a few adjectives to make it "shorter". If it is felt that it needs a summary style, yet the story reads as a point-by-point recount, then the whole thing needs to be rewritten in my opinion. The problem is that users seem to agree that it needs to be shortened in the review, yet the problem recurs in their successive articles. It is unhealthy for FAC contributors at peer review or FAC to take the prompts as absolute truths when they are partially subjective. In my experience, users have been known to make amendments even if they disagree with the advice, even though the option of arguing the case is a perfectly viable one. I was browsing an FAC one day that had a bloated, point-by-point storyline and an influential VG editor commended it especially in his/her review, which is not uncommon. I've felt for a long time that the issue needs to be raised at the VG project, although I also gave up on discussion there a long time ago too. Rant over. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 12:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll give trimming the story section a shot. I think most of the active members of the VG project are in agreement that shorter is better for plot summaries. So it shouldn't be an issue. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC))

Didn't trim as much as I hoped, but I shaved 1KB off the total size and got it down to six regular sized paragraphs. Hope it's an improvement. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC))

That looks pretty reasonable. — Deckiller 23:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Fails FA image criterion. Has 9 nonfree images, and their rationales are weak for almost all of them. Image:TidusYunaEmbrace.jpg, Image:Sin2.jpg, Image:Farplane.jpg, and Image:Map23cx.jpg should go at the very least, and possibly more from the gameplay section.

Yeah, I brought the images issue up before. Maybe the Farplane or the Map images can be removed, in favor of the "Sending" scene, which is a better descriptor of the game's art. Also, for a character-driven game, I'm surprised there's no shot that has all of the game's main characters. --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the gameplay section itself is too long, and the plot section should be severely trimmed in terms of setting (including all that unsourced information), and trim and merge the spirituality section into the setting. There's a serious issue of over-reliance on primary sources and I'm getting a vibe of WP:OR throughout. As for development, I'm not exactly swayed by the suggestion that the section is fine as it is. Sure, there's information in other sections (Audio, versions and merchandise), but these sections should be reorganized within the article in a more logical fashion if this is where the content is; the merchandise section, for example, should go before reception. I'd say it currently has issues with 1a, 1c, 3, and 4 of WP:FA? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The merchandise section has been placed before the reception section. I hope it is an improvement. Greg Jones II 15:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• As this is my second-favourite FF game (after VII), I'll probably have to start working on this one. The Prince (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Prince- I've got a couple things going right now, but I can help out here and there. Leave me note if you need an extra pair of eyes. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC))
    • Sure, I'll let you know if there's something I'm struggling with. Doing it all by myself would be too hard anyway. Thanks, Guy. The Prince (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I was going to move this to FARC but I'll leave it up as people are working. Marskell (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have know rewritten the reception section (except legacy) with what I think is an easier read. Does it look okay? The Prince (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've finished copy-editing and cleaning up the article. I think I've addressed all concerns that have been brought up adequately, and I think it should keep its FA status, even though it has one unreliable source. The Prince (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • And that one source is? I'm still not swayed by the length of the plot, but perhaps a user who's never played the game can clean it up better; I'll take a look in the coming days. There's still the referencing issue in gameplay and throughout. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure of the plot-merit of naming each of the aeons; they are not prerequisite to understanding the story at large. Actually, that's one of the things that irritated me about the lengthier plot section. --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Prince's edits have really improved the prose. I just did a copy edit sweep and didn't find too much to improve upon. The in-game content is much more concise and the development section has been greatly expanded from what it was. I don't think the plot is too long considering it sums up 50+ hours of story into five paragraphs. But I agree a sweep from someone who hasn't played the game would help. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC))
        • Thanks for the kind words. I think the plot section is as short as it can get, and contains the necessary details of a heavily plot-based game. David Fuchs: The source I'm talking about is ^ Khosla, Sheila (2003-10-13). "Tetsuya Nomura 20s". FLAREgamer. Retrieved on 2008-11-23. I didn't find a reliable source to replace it, and since quite a lot of content from the characters section has been retrieved from that source, I decided not to remove it. But if everyone agrees it should be removed, I will do so. The Prince (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
• Question: Since so many fair use images were removed from the article, would it be okay if a free use image is added? Maybe an image of Sakaguchi in the development section? FFXI has 2 free use images of a developer and the composer of the game. The Prince (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course; ideally, it would be entirely illustrated with free images. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Added free use image. The Prince (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Was is necessary to remove all the fair use images? The point of fair use images is to illustrate concepts not possible with pure text descriptions, concepts such as the sphere grid and the game's character art. Having too few images is just as bad as too many when it comes to FA. --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately we are bound by WP:NFCC. Besides there are still 4 nonfree images in the article. As it stands, the main issue with the article is the possible original research and unsourced statements that need to be addressed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are images and sources. Joelito (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Well if this is into FARC now, delist; concerns about sourcing have not been addressed; I think the images are tolerable as of now, but the sourcing requires significant changes and additions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I think the gameplay section could use at least a mention of the minigames such as blitz, just like the other FF articles. The article could also stand to use some different screenshots. The Tidus/Yuna image should be replaced by something that depicts more of the game's main characters; the image shown now can't really qualify that it "significantly improves the quality of the article" b/c you can barely see the main characters' faces. I'll again say that a shot of the sphere grid is essential. Fair use says an image may be used iff it depicts something that can't be detailed in words, and every review I have read seems to imply that the sphere grid is one such case. I'll try to make some changes to the lead so it flows more properly. --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Info on minigames added. I don't see the need in using an image of the Sphere Grid, though. The text pretty much explains the general idea of the Grid, IMO. The Prince (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The only sourcing issue is one ref's reliability in question correct? If the source and related content is removed, would that solve the problem?

I too think the image use is reasonable. However, if an image has to go, I recommend the Tidus/Yuna image as it adds the least to the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC))

I agree. There must be a better image than that. You can't even see Tidus' face. I tried to find a better one, but was unsuccessful. A good image would be something like [2], but since its fan-made and not made by Square Enix, it can unfortunately not be used, IIRC. The Prince (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I cut the image of the two of them disappearing, and I will try to replace the one bad reference left. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked around at the usual suspects, I don't think that it will be found for a while, if at all. All the issues seem to be addressed, can this be kept? Or are there still issues to be addressed? I would take a look at how it looked when this began and now, and you'll see dramatic improvement. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I've sent an e-mail to the author of the article (Sheila Khosla) regarding its reliability. If it's true that the sources contained the same information, the content about the characters can be added back. But for now, it may as well be removed. Regarding the image usage, I think one more is okay. We just need to decide on one that adds the most to the article. Any suggestions? The Prince (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think the image in the "versions and merchandise" section should be replaced. The date of when the photo was taken is on the image (see here), and it doesn't look very good, IMO. It also has a very high resolution. The Prince (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I and several others have worked very hard on this article, and I believe it currently meets the FA criteria. Anything controversial is cited with reliable sources, plot has been significantly trimmed, development has been expanded, fair use images have been greatly reduced etc. This is what the article looked like before the FAR: [3]. The Prince (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as per The Prince of Darkness' reasoning. This article has had many of its FAR issues addressed. Greg Jones II 20:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Having read and looked at the article it seems to tick all the boxes of FA criteria.Nintendofootball (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: The issues brought up have been addressed and I believe the article to be of FA standard. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.