Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Final Fantasy IV

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Final Fantasy IV[edit]

Was nominated and failed in March, but was fixed up a lot by a collaborative effort of people who worked on the other Final Fantasy FAs and the Chrono ones.

Here's the failed nomination: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Final Fantasy IV/Archive 1

  • Co-nom and support. This article's references have gone up to seventy six and the prose was fixed. I was also asked to tell you that if you have an objection, the problems will be corrected swiftly and zealously. Sir Crazyswordsman 19:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Co-nom/support; solid article, generally on par with the others; prose is a little "meh" in a couple paragraphs, but it's nitpicking. I believe it passes FAC quite well. — Deckiller 22:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Support - I am so proud to see this article, which I worked on to get it to GA and sponsored the first FA nomination, finally ready for FA. Thanks guys for your hard work in giving the big push that made this possible. Judgesurreal777 01:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comment: Nice work, but Image:FF4 WSC boxart.jpg and Image:Ffcbox.jpg do not have any sources. Thunderbrand 03:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Judgesurreal777 04:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, again. Sir Crazyswordsman 06:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Image:Ff4jbox.gif is missing a source. Thunderbrand 15:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also fixed :) Judgesurreal777 17:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Support - needs a good copyediting. Grammatical errors are rampant. I corrected 3 grammatical errors in the Versions and rereleases section that I ran across by accident while editing content. Kaldari 16:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please elaborate. I can't seem to find any. Sir Crazyswordsman 16:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The user has a point; I don't even think I touched the versions section. — Deckiller 17:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I took a look at it. It looks okay to me. There were a few problems in the GBA section which I fixed. Sir Crazyswordsman 17:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It seems that the article doesn't really need a copyedit any further, as those were isolated issues in a section that was not copyedited previously. — Deckiller 17:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here are a few problems I noticed with a casual proofreading of a few sections:

Copyediting:

  • "Characters move and interact with people and enemies on a field map, which usually depicts a single area——such as a tower or forest."
  • "The ESRB rated it (Everyone 10 and older) and the CERO designated it for all ages." (should say the ESRB rated it "E" (Everyone 10 and older)...)

Awkward sentences:

  • Magic is divided into "White" (healing and support) magic; "Black" (offensive) magic; and "Summon" (or "call") magic, used to summon monsters for offensive or specialized applications. (sentence is overly complex and doesn't flow well. overuse of parenthetical phrases makes a sentence hard to read.)
  • An early Super Nintendo game, Final Fantasy IV contained graphics improved over past Final Fantasy titles and concurrent Super Nintendo games. (use of conjunction is ambiguous: did FF4 contain other Super Nintendo games? sentence should probably be divided into two sentences or reworded.)
  • They meet Tellah along the way, who shares their destination in search of his daughter Anna. (prepositional phrase fits direct object, but not the verb, i.e. it sounds like they are also in search of his daughter. should be rewritten, possibly as two sentences.)

Need to use "logical quoting" per the Manual of Style:

  • Most of Final Fantasy IV takes place on Earth, also known as the "Blue Planet."
  • The world contains both an "Upper World" and an "Underground."

Redundantcy:

  • "an elite air force unit of airships" (wouldn't "elite unit of airships" be adequate?)

Awkward wording:

  • "Cecil awakes to find Kain absent" (more typical wording would be "wakes" or "awakens")
  • "they must surmount Mt. Hobs" (more typical wording would be "ascend" or "climb", especially before the word Mt.)

Grammar:

  • "Yang charters a ship to take him, Cecil, Edward, and Rydia to Baron" (should be "himself")
  • "Entitled Final Fantasy IV Advance, the Game Boy Advance port was released in North America by Nintendo of America on December 12, 2005, in Japan by Square Enix on December 15, 2005, and in Europe on June 2, 2006." (needs semicolons)
  • "released in Japan on March 27 2002" (missing a comma)

Hope that helps. I only looked through a few random sections to find those, so there are probably more problems that a thorough proofreading would reveal. Kaldari 18:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went in and fixed the vast majority of your edits, and looked through the rest of the article, and I would agree with you in some places (which I fixed earlier). However, I need some help with the WP:MOS concerns you brought up. How exactly should I treat in-game definitions (which have been explained and, of course, referenced). Sir Crazyswordsman 18:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Manual of Style recommends "logical" quoting: "When punctuating quoted passages, include the punctuation mark inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation ("logical" quotations)." What this means is that if the puctuation mark is part of what is being quoted, include it inside the quotation marks, otherwise put it outside the quoation marks. Kaldari 23:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All problems solved. Sir Crazyswordsman 23:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - The story section is far too long. Three paragraphs should be more than enough to summarize the plot. If you want to keep the current description, then please move it to another article, and use summary style here. This isn't an issue of article length, but of relevance. An encyclopedia article's job is not to give excessive detail on a video game plot. Thanks. --Taitcha 17:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see the pop culture FACs promoted over the last 2-3 months. Also, I noticed you just recently restarted editing; there has been a general shift in what is necessary for comprehensiveness. An encyclopedia's job is to be comprehensive; the story section leaves out many of the minor details as it is. — Deckiller 17:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • All our other FAs have similar length story. Sir Crazyswordsman 17:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can understand your worries about people wanting longer/shorter plot details. However, it seems a simple solution to me to have a sub-article with the full plot version, and a summary here. Can't everyone be happy that way? --Taitcha 17:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • We didn't start the trend; we followed it. Sir Crazyswordsman 17:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem with subarticles is that they will cause another camp of users to state that there should not be story-exclusive articles. — Deckiller 17:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is that a problem you've experienced, or is it just something you're anticipating? Personally, I don't imagine anyone would complain about such a sub-article, and I think it would be a positive new trend. --Taitcha 17:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • We've had some problems with it in the past. Most of the subarticles that HAVE gotten praise are usually term lists. The thing is also that FFIV's story is one of the most in-depth in the series as far as progression, as there are many minor details (which we left out, for the record) which have SEVERE impact on the story. Look at some of the FFIV character articles on the Final Fantasy Wiki compared to the FFVI or FFVII ones there, and you'll see that their stories have much more importance to the overall plot. It's something I think that's beyond my control. It's for this reason that the story sections are now overloaded with references to the game itself. I should probably say this as the writer and primary referencer of the story section, which has actually been trimmed down (to my greatest impression) after I wrote it. Sir Crazyswordsman 17:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I'm not too happy about the state of things, but out of respect for your efforts, I'll change my vote to Neutral. --Taitcha 17:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's fine. I understand the merits of and respect your opinion. I just want all our FAs to be consistent. Sir Crazyswordsman 18:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: This being the English Wikipedia, why is the lone battle sequence screen taken from the Japanese version of the game? I think it's much more accessible if readers see "Fight," and "Item" in the command list rather than Japanese characters. EDIT: On second glance, I see that Cecil is in the middle of using an item. Showing the command list at all would be more illustrative of the game's style of combat. --Tristam 20:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the original game is japanese... Judgesurreal777 23:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your point? We don't want a Japanese screenshot on an English Wikipedia. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Says who? We are not pushing some kind of English-only Wikipedia since this game is JAPANESE, and my point is that there is nothing wrong with including screenshots from the original game, regardless of its language. Judgesurreal777 23:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have an English one up in ten minutes. Sir Crazyswordsman 23:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It now has an English screen. Sir Crazyswordsman 23:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, CSM. Judge, I think the argument of originality versus accessibility is pretty weak. Final recommendation for CSM: I do like the separate infoboxes for the different versions of the game, but that section always has looked ugly. I think you can remove the FFChronicles infobox; after all, the game does have its own article. I think with that infobox out of the way and the text to help break apart the other infoboxes, it should be easier to move around the infoboxes in a more aesthetically pleasing fashion. --Tristam 00:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just dont appreciate the terse and seemingly rude response from emulator guy when I was initially requesting clarification. Judgesurreal777 00:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. Remember, the image is being used to describe the game mechanics. Since this is an English Wikipedia, the game mechanics cannot be fully described without an English screenshot, therefore bringing it out of fair use. --TheEmulatorGuy 00:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Emulator Guy and Tristam, I very much appreciate your civility :) And I do see your point, I suppose it is better for comprehension. Judgesurreal777 00:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Sir Crazyswordsman 00:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Voted to support after complaints were addressed. Judge, I apologize for all the hoopla then. Great article though, guys. --Tristam 00:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Tristam. Sir Crazyswordsman 00:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Once again, a fine, fine article. Here's to yet another Final Fantasy FA! --PresN 01:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is still a bit of easy to fix items that Auto-peer review found such as lengthinging the intro, removing redunant words like 'some', and making the image captions more consise. The APR can be found on the articles talk page. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 02:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is only one usage of the word "some" in the article (I believe I zapped most of the significant redundancies on the first and second passes; I'm a stiffler when it comes to redundancies). The intro seems to be on par with most of the pop culture FAs as of late, especially the final fantasies. Caption succinctness is one thing that I agree with. — Deckiller 02:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I took care of a few size terms, but I'm not big on removing those, as they often provide a compromise between listing every example and providing misinformation. — Deckiller 02:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for being here, Deck, and for your concerns, Ravedave. I've tried experimenting with caption succinctness, and was able to reduce their size a bit, but I don't know how to go any further without losing meaning. And as for the auto-Peer Review stuff, a lot of it is either stuff I can't really find (the date stuff, mainly) and the interlinking alphabetizing (can't find that stuff either). I may take another look later. Sir Crazyswordsman 02:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • On second thought, I took another look and fixed most of these little things. Sir Crazyswordsman 03:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • ALL image captions are now concise, and subtrivia has been removed. Sir Crazyswordsman 03:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for now. This is my favorite RPG ever, so I'd love to see this featured. I copy edited the article, but this allowed me to notice other, more fundamental problems:
    • First off, holy moly, the plot synopsis is long! The level of detail given simply isn't necessary; you don't need to mention every boss monster fight and every minor plot twist. I'd cut this section by 1/3 to 1/2.
    • Second, the sources used concern me. We've got the various versions of the game itself, the manuals, and some game magazines (all good), but then the rest of the sources are fan sites (rpgamer.com, allrpg.com, gamesarefun.com, the-magicbox.com, 1up.com, lostlevels.org, mobygames.com, ffcompendium.com, b-rock.netfirms.com, geocities.com/arcanelore2001/, and finalfantasy.neoseeker.com). Per WP:RS, these just don't cut it, especially for a featured article ("self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources").
    • Either incorporate the direct quotes from the game into the main text, or axe them. There's no need for direct quotations unless you want to add color to the article, and that should be done in the main body. — BrianSmithson 10:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There may be some issues with precedent here. Perhaps the plot can be cut by a third, but lately the trend has been to satisfy the comprehensiveness requirement of featured articles before worrying about length, which isn't a requirement. Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross are examples. Nearly all the featured CVG RPG articles do source quotes from the text in references, too, though I'm not sure if that's an official policy or what.
As for the sources, several of those are review sites that have been accepted with other articles. RPGamer, AllRPG, and GaF are credible reviewers supported by gamerankings.org. I think 1up.com is supposed to be a respected blog, but I don't know too much about it. The b-rock thing is a fan translation reference, so it's normal to have a fansite for that (like the Compendium and RPGOne at Chrono Trigger). Fan translations have also been decided to be notable on WP:CVG's talk page. The real use of the other sources listed is documenting the translation differences. No "real source" breaks down the details, yet this is still relevant information for readers. Unless someone can get IGN to run a special feature on the version changes, there's just no source for this unless we cite these. So not sure what to do about that.
I'm back from an unexpected break, so I'll be able to help with anything. --Zeality 12:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, bad precedent shouldn't change the way we review articles now. I didn't participate in the FACs for Chrono Cross and the others, but had I done so, I would have raised the same conerns. — BrianSmithson 22:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you read some of the other comments above, and I've said this many times, you'll understand that a lot of your complaints are really just based on what the trends are. First of all, a lot of the sites you have problems with are actually well-respected sites within the community (and Zeality, 1UP.com is similar to IGN). Direct quotes from the game itself are required. It says somewhere that "in the story section, there should be a reference every two sentences from the story itself." Sir Crazyswordsman 15:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a policy anywhere. Every two sentences seems like a rather arbitrary rule at any rate. — BrianSmithson 22:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I've been very busy lately and haven't really had time to check in, I can neither fairly support nor object at this time simply because I don't have time to read the entire article and give it due analysis, but I would like to comment on the matter of sources. RPGamer is a well known site that has been covering RPG news and reviews for 8 years, and was exclusively covering Square Co. (now Square Enix) games as Square Net for three years before that (some have said that it was even hosted on Square's own server when it was Square Net). In terms of notability, it's in one of the highest tiers.
As for 1UP.com, I can't imagine how that wouldn't qualify. The 1UP network is owned and operated by Ziff Davis Media, and is comprised of several publications, including — but not limited to — Electronic Gaming Monthly and Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine. If this doesn't qualify, nothing would. In fact, the 1UP article being used as a source was written by Jeremy Parish, a contributor to OPM and EGM.
For one of the others, as Zeality has mentioned, the b-rock reference is pretty much necessary given the nature of the information and the citation. I would also contest the notion that Neoseeker isn't a notable source. It's been around for 7 years and is quite well known. I don't really have time to look into or comment on the others, but any of them that are or are affiliated with RPGamer, CNET, Ziff Davis Media or IGN are definitely notable enough.
By the way, as for including quotes from the game itself, that's part of the manual of style, and is a practice not followed as religiously as it should be:
"Of course, out-of-universe information needs context; details of creation, development, etc. are more helpful if the reader understands a fictional element's role in its own milieu. This often involves using the fiction to give plot summaries, character descriptions or biographies, or direct quotations. This is not inherently bad, provided that the fictional passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article. If such passages stray into the realm of interpretation, secondary sources must be provided to avoid original research. Note that when using the fictional work itself to write these descriptions the work of fiction must be cited as a source. For instance, a video game article should cite the game text, but it should also cite a reliable secondary source when necessary."
That's the most I have to offer for the moment, I'm afraid. Good luck with the FAC. I hope I'll get time to come back by and offer some comments about the article itself. Ryu Kaze 15:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on the fence about RPGamer.com. It does have a large "staff", but there's no evidence that it's subject to any editorial oversight and thus that it is not self-published. I can't find anything to reassure me about neoseeker; it looks like it's open to contributions from anyone (or at least from registered users).
The direct quotation thing (from WP:WAF) was never intended to be interpreted like this (and I should know; I wrote it, though not the addendum about video games, which I hadn't noticed until now). Rather, it was meant to sort out things like detailed backstories of characters taken from 20 different sources and weaved together into one whole. That way people can tell what comic book it was where Darth Vader got his new respirator or what cartoon shows that Speed Racer is afraid of heights. Here, the source is the same throughout. One source cite is enough for the whole plot, just to tell us what translation you're using. The direct quotes as they are being used do nothing but bloat the article and make it appear better referenced than it actually is. — BrianSmithson 22:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As with the other gaming FAs/FACs, we struck a balance between the two factions (although like FF7, I wasn't a major contributor to this one), so it's highly unlikely that the synopsis will be cut down or expanded unless the featured article criteria can be interpreted correctly and in such a manner that discourages lengthy or short synopsis. As for the sources, a general term for "reliable sources" is misleading and perhaps ignorant on the part of certain aspects of the community (like certain parts of WP:NOT used to be). Reliable sources are different for each article; what's reliable for this would not be reliable for, say, a movie, or a war article. Reliable sources should be reworded to state that "Articles should have the highest level of reliable sources available for the topic". This article has some of the best sources it can get, so I see no problem with any of the sourcing. Final Fantasy IV doesn't have its own series of documentaries on A and E, or five analysis books published. As for the quotations, they have been included for numerous FAs, and they are perfectly fine according to most camps - they have never posed a problem in the past, and removing them would severely weaken the state of the article, as then we'd have people complaining that it's OR. With all of our FAs, we attempt to strike a balance between all factions, as this is the only true way to forge Wikipedia's best. — Deckiller 17:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree with any such rewording of WP:RS. Self-published is self-published, and such sources are largely unacceptible for encyclopedia sources. If these sources are affiliated with academic institutions or the well-known and respected gaming sites mentioned above, I would have no problem. But a Geocities page? That just isn't good enough for the FA level. — BrianSmithson 22:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, a source should not be treated as lesser just because it is web-based. Sir Crazyswordsman 23:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree that the geocities reference (singular) should be removed and replaced by a better source (it's indeed possible; why in the world is a geocities reference in here anyway?!). However, let's keep things in perspective here; most encyclopedias write about major academic issues; stuff that has plenty of the most "reliable sources". However, on Wikipedia, we cover numerous topics very well (and just as factually accurate) with the best sources possible for that topic - and in many cases, they are web sources. Mario, Star Wars, and Donkey Kong would have many more books (or, rather, book sections) than an RPG. I stand by my comments above. — Deckiller 03:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't web-based vs. print, Crazyswordsman. Rather, it's self-published vs. not self-published. The various fan sites used to source some of this article are self-published, which, per, WP:RS, means they are not acceptable. I understand the frustration in trying to find good sources for pop culture articles such as this one, but it's a slippery slope if we lower our standards for some subjects and not others. I've been in (am in?) a pretty heated argument at Talk:Mami Wata that should illustrate why self-published sources are rightfully warned against in our policies. I stand by my comments, as well. — BrianSmithson 07:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Geocities thing is used because it's the only site, to my knowledge, that correctly notes that the Japanese Easytype was built from the US version, not the other way around. Ask a casual fan and he or she will say that the US version is a port of the Easytype, which is erroneous. This is unlucky, because it's a very important source. --Zeality 12:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Co-nom and Support. I'm a little late to the party due to unexpected events. --Zeality 21:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Finally you made it! At least now I know I'll have some help taking the heat here. Sir Crazyswordsman 21:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and Comment, I'm a little concerned about the actual number of story quotations referenced in the article. It's looking like almost 50% of the references section. Story references are good and all but that may be a bit excessive. Looking at some of the other Final Fantasy FAs, I see around 20 story references for some of the more controversial or obscure story points. Axem Titanium 22:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. Regarding the story references, it's 33 out of 76 references, which is less than half. We originally had sixty of them. FFIV is has such a deep and complex story compared to FFVI and even FFVII that it needs this. Almost EVERYTHING in the game has story value and isn't "Just there." Sir Crazyswordsman 22:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd agree that IV is on the higher end of the spectrum when it comes to having a story where almost everything presented is actually relevant, but I'd still argue that VII has one of the more complex stories. At least in terms of how it's presented. Which is ironic considering how much of the story isn't even relevant to that core complex plot arc. IV is definitely consistent in its developments bearing relevance. By the way, still haven't gotten time to review the whole article, I'm afraid, but I'm liking of what I've seen so far. Ryu Kaze 23:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're a good man, Ryu, and I really appreaciate all you've done for us. Sir Crazyswordsman 23:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, thank you for saying so, CS. You guys are most welcome, and it's been my pleasure. I just wish I had more time to lend a helping hand these days. By the way, I've had more time to look over the article and now throw in... (continued just below) Ryu Kaze 02:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... (continued from above) Support for the reasons others have mentioned (particularly the reasons given in Deckiller's vote of confidence) and the touch-ups that have been made since the FAC began. Good work. Ryu Kaze 02:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The reception section is lacking. I'm not going to move on this until some relevent contemporary sources are quoted. Although we know that it polled very highly in the Famitsu 2006 readers poll, we don't have any review sources from when the game was actually released. I mean, what did Famitsu actually have to say about this? I've not really commented on that many FACs, but from now on, if there's no contemporary sources I'm going to oppose. - Hahnchen 00:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that a review from the time of the game's release would be an extremely valuable piece of information. If anyone's interested in knowing where to get that review, it's issue 30 of Nintendo Power. You can get it on eBay right now (particularly check this) if you're willing to spend a little money for it (I know that might be out of the question, though, since it's basically spending money for volunteer work). Good luck. Ryu Kaze 00:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • P.S. I couldn't find the review on FindArticles.com. Better luck to you guys if you try. Ryu Kaze 00:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • We have a reference to Nintendo Power issue 30 already. Sir Crazyswordsman 00:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah, so you do. Well nevermind then. XD The section's just fine. Ryu Kaze 01:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd much rather have Famitsu's take on things. Get that, and I'd support.- Hahnchen 00:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • When you say Famitsu do you mean from then or from now? Because honestly I think Nintendo Power is probably better for then, as NP is better known throughout the English speaking community than Famitsu, but if you want Famitsu I'll try to find its review for you. Sir Crazyswordsman 01:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I found something! Sir Crazyswordsman 01:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I mean from when the game was released. My own problem with Nintendo Power, and other such "official" magazines, is that they have to toe the party line. This is an issue which does not affect third party publications such as Famitsu. (after edit conflict) It would be nice to have the Famitsu score, and the score from Nintendo Power as well. - Hahnchen 01:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I honestly don't know that what I have will satisfy you, but you may want to take a look. Sir Crazyswordsman 01:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gamerankings should give you the rating. But to find the commentary, you're going to have to find someone in Japan who can scour markets for the relevant issue and then translate it. --Zeality 02:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No Famitsu there, but I did find GamePro. Sir Crazyswordsman 02:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good. But note how the reception and critical reaction section for this is the shorter than the sections for other Final Fantasy FAs. If the only reason is that it's older and you don't have access to the print sources which obviously exist, then I'm not going to move, as I don't think it's as good as the others. - Hahnchen 03:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just as an update to the objections, we're looking for print sources by way of WP:CVG Magazine Projects and other avenues. We can also remove the Geocities reference, though I'd rather ensure we have some print before doing so (it's a really important reference, and we're plain unlucky that it's only available on a self-published webpage). We have no estimate on how long it will take to find print sources, so it's up to Raul on whether to remove this for the time being, pass personal judgment on the article's reception section, or leave it on the FAC page while we search. If it is removed, we'll renominate as soon as we can get some material. --Zeality 22:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I've done about five web searches and I can't find much. Sir Crazyswordsman 23:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This is almost there, I just have some qualms.
    • The biggest issue is that the plot summary needs less blow-by-blow and a bit more summary. Picking a paragraph at random...
      Cecil awakens on a beach near Mysidia, where he is met with contempt by the town's wizards for stealing the Water Crystal earlier.[23] However, the Mysidian elder allows Cecil to hold audience with him.[24] The elder notes that to defeat Golbez, Cecil must surrender his dark sword and become a Paladin. Cecil agrees and is asked to climb Mt. Ordeals to complete a trial.[25] He is assisted by twin wizards Palom and Porom, who are secretly ordered by the elder to spy on Cecil to learn if his intentions are pure.[26] While traveling, they encounter and defeat Scarmiglione, Golbez's Fiend of Earth. They also stumble upon Tellah, who is searching for the legendary spell of Meteo to defeat Golbez.[27] Cecil completes the trials, becomes a Paladin, and returns to Mysidia. The four warriors take the Serpent Road from Mysidia to Baron. Cecil learns that the engineer Cid was arrested for hiding his airship from the king. At the Baron inn, Cecil finds Yang brainwashed by Baronian solders. Cecil helps Yang recover, and together the five infiltrate the castle. Cecil discovers that the king is actually Caignazzo, Golbez's Fiend of Water.[28] Freed by Cecil, Cid takes the paladin to the Enterprise, his newest airship. Before dying, Caignazzo causes the walls of the castle to move with the intent of crushing Cecil. Palom and Porom petrify themselves to halt the trap.[29]
      With five minutes rewrite, I soaked that down to...
      Cecil awakens on a beach near Mysidia, where he is met with suspicion and derision. In Mysidia, the elder advises Cecil that he must surrender his dark sword and become a Paladin, and to do so he must complete a trial at Mt. Ordeals. The Elder sends twin wizards Palom and Porom along with Cecil, both to help and spy on Cecil. At Mt. Ordeals, the confront and defeat Scarmiglione, Golbez's Fiend of Earth, and encounter Tellah, who is searching for the legendary spell Meteo to defeat Golbez. Cecil completes the trials, becomes a Paladin, and returns to Mysidia.
      From there, the four travel to Baron, where they discover that the engineer Cid has been arrested and Yang brainwashed. After rescuing Yang and helping him recover, the five infiltrate the castle, where they discover that the king has been replaced with Caignazzo, Golbez's Fiend of Water, in disguise. The five of them defeat Caignazzo, but before dying, Caignazzo causes the walls of the castle to move with the intent of crushing the party. Palom and Porom petrify themselves to halt the trap, and Cid leads the survivors to the Enterprise, his newest airship.
      And that's without omitting any trivial points, like why Tellah was at Mt. Ordeals or every single boss battle. I realize the goal is comprehensiveness, but given that the rest of the article makes little reference to the plot (unlike with Final Fantasy VII), there's little need to sustain this level of detail. The rest of the article would still make sense even if the plot summary was reduced to...
      "Final Fantasy IV is the story of Cecil, a dark knight of Baron who is betrayed by his nation and eventually leads an ever-changing party of heroes in their effort to defeat the dark lord Golbez, who has co-opted Baron in an effort to collect the elemental crystals."
      Bear in mind I'm not suggesting that, but the rest of the article would still make sense.
    • The bloc of infoboxes below is ugly and unnecessary. The info those infoboxes have is the platform (which is already covered in the prose) and the release date (which can easily be covered in the text; Metal Gear Solid#Release information isn't perfect, but is an example of how this could be done without the need for obtrusive tables.
    • There's no need for a separate image for FFIV Easytype; it's the same cover with different trade dress. I'm also somewhat unhappy with having an image of the Wonderswan image; why do we need to illustrate a version of the game so minor that it only has three sentences in the article?
    • We have two images of interior overhead view, but no image of the overworld. It might be a good idea to replace the Golbez/Kain/Rosa image (which seems kind of unnecessary) with an overworld image.
    This is close, but it's just not quite FA-class yet. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I should probably get around to doing this this weekend. There has been infobox controversey before, and some have already been removed. I'll get rid of all infoboxes and pictures except for the SNES and GBA ones. Sir Crazyswordsman 15:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I took the infoboxes away. Sir Crazyswordsman 16:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've noted the progress, above. Most of the issues are superficial, but I do strongly feel that the plot summary fails to summarize. This article is 54K, and much of this is plot recap. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's compromise. I don't want to get rid of important plot points, but I am finding a way to get rid of subtrivia (for example, I got rid of the Octomam reference). Sir Crazyswordsman 16:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (reindent) I'm not toeing a hard line here, I just want to see a bit more effort put into summarizing. Some examples of superfluous details:
    • The mist dragon fight.
    • The fact that Rydia summons Titan, and how exactly it destroys the village.
    • Cecil's and Rydia's exact situation after they wake up. (There's a lot of this; it suffices to just say "...knocked the three unconscious. Once Cecil wakes up he discovers that Kain is missing and the girl is injured, so he takes her to a nearby town, Kaipo."
    • Exact dungeon names. There's a lot of "They travel to the Watery Pass," "They travel to Mt. Ordeals," and so on.
    • Exact modes of travel. "They take a hovercraft," "They take the Serpent Road," etc.
    I could do more, but it really feels like the main threads of the story are being lost in a flurry of detail. Take some time and consider whether a given detail is important to the story as a whole, or at least a particularly memorable moment. Examples like the fact that Rydia was laying on grass, driving a hovercraft around a desert, the entire bit with the Dark Elf's cave (why is that not one sentence?), fighting Dr. Lugae (bosses don't get any more throwaway), most of the Fiend battles, and many other details (I'm listing things again, *sigh*) are just overwhelming the main thread of the plot. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the Mist Dragon IS an important boss to the storyline because without it, we would have no Rydia. I guess you could take some of it out. But some of it needs to stay. Sir Crazyswordsman 22:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I took out the references to Titan and town descriptions. "Watery Pass," "Mt. Hobs," "Serpent Road," "Sealed Cave," and the fact that the Dark Elf is protected by a magnetic field are a few of the things I took out. Also, note that minor terms like "Misty Cave" "Baigan," "Old Water Way," "Mom Bomb," and "Twin Harp" are never mentioned. Sir Crazyswordsman 23:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mt. Ordeals WILL be kept though, as that is where a major plot point occurrs. I have a question: have you ever played the game? If you have, you should know what's important and what's not. Important locations should stay, and Mt. Ordeals is probably the most important location in the entire game other than Baron. Sir Crazyswordsman 23:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I did the image replacement you want, and now you should know that now even important figures such as Dr. Lugae and Rubicante are taken out. Sir Crazyswordsman 23:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Familiar enough such that I could write a plot summary from memory. Mt. Ordeals is a good example where details overwhelm the thread of the story; we're futzing around with the suspicions of the Mysidian townsfolk, the fact that Cecil gets an audience, traveling to Mt. Ordeals, the fact that he meets Scarmiglione, and even why Tellah is at Mt. Ordeals, but the trial itself (the first hint to the events of the third act) is glossed over as "Cecil completes the trials, becomes a Paladin, and returns to Mysidia"?
    I'm finding that the problem is too much "They went here. They did this. Foo joined them. Bar left. Then they went here." This isn't brilliant prose, and it's not useful or particularly interesting summary. The problem seems to be style as much as length and level of detail. I know there's an effort to stay away from getting too interpretive here, but this isn't FA class writing yet. Maybe it might be a good idea to talk to Deckiller and Ryu Kaze about refining the plot summary? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll ask. Sir Crazyswordsman 00:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Deck reworked the paragraphs, and I blended a few sentences together, using different styles of sentence construction here and there while minimizing the use of the passive voice. Sir Crazyswordsman 04:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My objections are sufficiently dealt with, and I've struck my oppose above. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You still haven't actually votes support on it. Sir Crazyswordsman 23:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: An overall excellent article.GrimRepr39 00:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Excellent prose, good choice of images and a solid amount of references. Fulfills what's expected from a featured article, and is similar to other featured Final Fantasy articles. --TheEmulatorGuy 03:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Summary to date, as this nom is getting pretty lengthy: 3 co-nominating supports, 10 supports, 2 oposes, and 1 neutral. The current tally is therefore 13/2/1. --PresN 20:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Final_Fantasy_IV&oldid=1128421449"