Jump to content

Talk:Air (video game)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

GA nomination

I have nominated Air (series) for Good Article status.---- (十八) 05:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, good work! There is hope for Air in Wikipedia after all! _dk 05:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to actually review the article since I've worked on it, but I felt I should make a few minor points:

  • We seriously need to find somewhere to get real reviews for visual novels. A review on gamefaqs is really pushing it. hentai.co.uk I'm on the fence about. I bet Famitsu has a review, but it's damn hard to search for it when you're working with such a simple title.
Getchu.com is regarded as the most reliable VN review site, I believe. It has reviews of most games as well as sales information (very helpful). Moogy (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and I have checked there in the past, but their records begin around 2004 when Fate/stay night, Shuffle! and Clannad were just coming out. The main trouble here is how old Air is and that none of the more recent Air games have made it on any of their lists, or any that I could find...Thanks for reminding me about getchu though; I'll check again later to see if I can find anything.---- (十八) 22:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The quote in the plot section needs soucing. I know that it's basically the tagline for the series, but the casual reader won't. I'm not quite sure if it needs to be included anyways; taglines have been phased out of most articles.
  • Can we get a better picture of the Air girls? That one is kinda unclear. I think there's a cloud or something that's distorting the lower half. It also seems a little too dark when small.
  • Mention how there is a "Best" version of the PS2 port. I'm not quite sure what that means exactly, but I think it's like the Player's Choice or Greatest Hits of Japan.

Nothing too major, everything looks 'good'. I hope it makes it.--SeizureDog 07:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay:
  1. As you have stated before, reviews are hard to come by so I made do with what I could find. As you said, having the title be a very simple English word doesn't make things any easier.
We should should ask people on the Japanese Wiki if they know of any place to go.--SeizureDog 09:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Good idea...though I believe you'd have to take care of that for I have almost no knowledge of the language...yet.---- (十八) 09:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. Source the quote? Eh, easy enough to do, and I would rather not take it out since it's a definative quote for the series and warrents inclusion.
  2. That was the best picture I could find. I slaved over those search engines for hours and hours trying to find not only the Air girls all in a single picture, but also a screenshot from the game featuring some dialogue, of which I came up with zero on both counts. That pic is actually one I already had and when push came to shove, I ended up using it for the time being until a suitable picture can be found. It serves its purpose, and while it's not the best picture possible, there really is not much else I could find to replace it.
  3. The "Best" version is actually the re-release of the PS2 version. I'm not sure why some places has it labeled as "Best", though there's no real difference between the two PS2 releases save price. :/
Which is why I think it's one of those things where if a game sells X number of copies they release it in a different format.--SeizureDog 09:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
While that may be true, do you have anything to back this claim up?---- (十八) 09:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
If you think trying to search for Air is hard, try making a search for "Best" in relation to PlayStation 2 games. I just can't word my search to turn up what I want. It's really freaking annoying. In short, no. I can't haven't figured out what the "Best" edition of games is supposed to mean.--SeizureDog 10:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've found this page where it appears you were correct on your assumption.---- (十八) 10:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, well yeah I knew it was used for other games too, I could have told you that. Sony's been using that system since the PS1 in Japan, but I still don't know how many copies it has to sell to get it. If that's the standard at all.--SeizureDog 10:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to work things out.---- (十八) 08:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of reviews, I recently emailed visual-novels.net about a possible future review of Air, and they say they have a copy, though there's several other titles in line before they get to Air, if they ever do, so it'll be a while on their review.---- (十八) 10:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have passed this article as a Good Article on 13/1/07. Congratulations to the lead editors, and Happy Editing! Kind regards, Anthonycfc [T • C] 14:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

Now that this article has become a Good Article, I am going to initiate the process for the article to be peer reviewed so that perhaps it might gain Featured Article status. Please place any comments on the peer review page, linked at the top of this page.---- (十八) 02:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Minagi's surname

Due to official artwork such as this and this, taken from the OP of the original game, I am changing Minagi's surname to Tohno.---- (十八) 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Note on Criticism

"The first versions of the visual novel are criticized for its inclusion of these scenes, which are thought to be out of place and detract from the actual plot of the visual novel. For this reason, Key released subsequent editions of Air without the erotic content."

I believe there is a lack of foundation in this statement, and would require citation. If one considers the primary audience of visual novels, it is hard to believe that the inclusion of H-scenes called for significant criticism. In fact, I believe one of the greater criticisms of Clannad, was the lack of H-scenes.

I believe the correct explanation of why subsequent releases of Air removed the scenes was because they were released on consoles, which are much more restricted as far as pornographic content goes. In fact, the DVD re-release of Air included the H-scenes. I understand that such scenes do draw some criticism, but as it is stated now, i believe that it is a misrepresentation of the true state of affairs. I believe this may have been brought up before, so I am merely asking for a citation or better proof. Pifactor 10:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"Series"

While I understand I might have waited too long to bring this up, but why is the title Air (series) when Air is not a series? (ie. there is no succession, no prequels and sequels, etc). At best, it is a franchise. I propose to move this page to Air (visual novel) or similar, since the TV anime and the movie have their own articles, and all adaptations originated from the game anyways. Please discuss. _dk 16:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

While I do agree on the point that the article should have been renamed a long time, I disagree on what should be the designation. At WikiProject Anime and manga, it is listed here which states that for a game related article, the designation should be as follows: Game related - title (game). I do realize why you chose to use the visual novel designation for One (visual novel) though I believe due to this convention, it should go back to simply (game). As such, I also would like to see this article renamed to Air (game) like it was so many months before.--(十八) 21:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
That's fine with me. _dk 06:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't really see anyone finding a reason to disagree with this, so I've tagged Air (game) for speedy delete so we can move this article to that title. -- Ned Scott 07:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
All done. -- Ned Scott 08:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There is one thing left, Category:Air (series), but I'm not even sure we need a cat for the handful of articles we have. -- Ned Scott 09:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I still believe that the category, though renamed to Category: Air (game), should be kept; if nothing else, there's a multitude of images still there. Also, thanks of the page move.--(十八) 10:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Whether we choose to rename it or delete it, we'd still have to put it on WP:CFD. Let the community decide what to do with it there. _dk 11:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I could see this easily being speedied for the same reason the page move was. Doesn't matter to me, though. -- Ned Scott 08:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Article name

I moved the article from Air (game) to Air (visual novel) since that Air (computer game) article really kinda screwed with the old name(s) and the use of "(game)" has been/is being phased out for video game articles. Anyways, there are a number of other possible namespaces we could move it to if where I moved it to troubles anyone: Air (2000 video game) or Air (Key) to name two. However, considering how visual novels are only barely even considered "games" in the first place, I rather prefer to use (visual novel).--SeizureDog 07:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

But just going off WP:Anime#Article name, shouldn't it be (game) like it says there?--十八 07:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
New suggestion: All right, we can start using (visual novel) to denote visual novel related articles that conflict with common names, like Air. To do this then, shouldn't the convention at WP:Anime#Article name be renamed, or at the very least have a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual novels where we can write in the convention ourselves?--十八 07:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Being phased out? Eh? Wikipedia:Disambiguation says to only disambiguate when necessary.. Naming conventions generally should be discussed on Wikipedia-wide talk pages, too. I can't help but think that (visual novel) is being pushed simply because there is now a visual novel WikiProject. -- Ned Scott 08:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I've moved it back to Air (game) for now, since it was less work to do that than moving talk archives, updating their double redirects, and fixing the left-over double redirects from the main move itself. Something about this just seems needless to me, so I think we should take this to WP:RM. -- Ned Scott 08:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, (game) is being phased out, usually to (video game) or (computer game) (e.g. Black (video game), Black & White (computer game)) but that doesn't work here anymore since it conflicts with the other computer game named Air. I don't really care if it's (visual novel) or something else, but (game) is just horribly unspecific for any video game article, I think it's especially bad here since visual novels are only "games" in the loosest sense. The standard for multiple games of the same title is a little less consistant, so we don't really have anything to follow there. Ghostbusters (video game) goes by company, but the other Air game wasn't even made by a company, so that might not be the best choice. So basically, it's either (visual novel) or (2000 video game), but not (2000 computer game) since it got ports and also not Air (video game) because a computer game is still a video game (and would thus conflict with the other article. The year format goes along with how films are handled, but I simply prefer the (visual novel) since that is how the lead identifies it. Also sorry that I missed the discussion directly above this one.--SeizureDog 08:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Err, the conversation seemed to die down without any sort of conclusion, but by the way it seems now I guess we're sticking with Air (game)? _dk 05:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm now pushing for Air (2000 video game). Film articles handle themselves by year, so I guess video game articles should be as well. The '(game)' most certainly should be switched to '(video game)' in some way though, as the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games has stopped using that for quite a while now. In any case, I hate moving a page more than once, but I'll probably do so until discussion pops up here again.--SeizureDog 06:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Eh, after thinking about it.. visual novel or any of the others suggested seem fine. Whatever works. I don't think the year is required, though, if there is only one video game / novel/ whatever by that name. -- Ned Scott 05:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think Air (visual novel) is best, though. _dk 22:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
lol, damnit, only after I convince myself that an alternative should be used you guys support my original idea? Such a tease. Moving back to (visual novel) since Ned Scott was the one that objected in the first place.--SeizureDog 04:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
All right, glad a consensus was reached. Now all we need to do is move Category:Air (series) to Category:Air (visual novel). Additionally, I added to the article naming conventions at WP:Anime#Article name to include visual novels.--十八 06:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Why would Category:Air (series) need to be moved? The category is used for all mediums. --SeizureDog 06:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I guess you're right.--十八 08:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Still, Air is no series. _dk 11:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I guess you have a point there. "Category:Air (media franchise)" has a odd ring to it, but I guess that's what it technically is.--SeizureDog 11:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Theme vs. Motif

The theme section seems to be discussing motifs rather than the themes of the game itself. Keep in mind that a motif is a recurring symbol, and that a theme is what the symbols represent. The discussion of "air, skies, and wings" for example merely gives examples of how those particular symbols appear throughout the game/anime; therefore, they should be called "motifs," not themes. If one was to say, for example, the air represents the characters' desires for freedom, then "desire for freedom" would be a theme. Keep in mind that wikipedia is not for original research, so making any such conclusions would require a citation. Also, I haven't seen this anime/played this game so I have no idea what themes it could really be trying to get accross; I just used the "freedom" thing as an example. Anyway, someone who knows what they're doing should fix this. Maybe rename the section to Motifs and/or find citations for possible themes. 75.60.182.129 06:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a theme and a motif are near syntonyms. It's rather stupid and confusing, and I wish that the articles had some actual sources to back themselves up. Both words have multiple meanings depending on the context. My dictionary says that a 'theme' is "subject or topic on which one speaks or writes", while a 'motif' is "a usu. recurring salient thematic element or feature (as in a work of art; esp: a dominant idea or theme". Basically, I've always thought of a motif as the most important or reoccuring theme in a work. But I dunno, is there something official we can look at to clarify the difference?--SeizureDog 22:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe he's talking about theme (literature) rather than the general sense of the word. _dk 00:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The question is, which use of 'theme' applies to Air? I mean, the visual novel is very literature-ish obviously, but the adaptations certainly aren't.--SeizureDog 03:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
To delve into the literary themes would be OR unless we could get some staff interviews, so I don't think we can write about that. _dk 03:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I am actually talking about "the general sense of the word." Note the third paragraph in this article : "Themes differ from motifs in that themes are ideas conveyed by the visual experience as a whole, while motifs are repeated symbols found inside an over-arching theme..." It is true that they are nearly synonyms and that many people are unclear about the correct usage of them; I guess I'm just being a little picky about word choice. Note that since motifs are just recurring symbols, it is alright to include them in wikipedia, since the visual novel itself is a reference; by viewing the anime/reading (playing?) the visual novel, repeated occurrences of the motif is very evident. Stating that a motif is important (w/out citation), however, is probably pushing it. Also, as I said earlier, stating an actual theme is original research, unless a citation is included.75.60.182.129 03:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved from Air (anime) merger

Images

I find it slightly amusing that, apart from the infobox image, the only image in the article is that of cameo characters from another series. Shiroi Hane 09:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well. Article is at its premature stages. Every character and episode has their own individual artcles and related images, or at least they will have once I am done. --Cat out 18:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Dream Arc

The Dream arc is up to episode 7, not 6. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.231.13.169 (talk) 11:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

Requested move

Air (TV series) → Air (anime) — In accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga#Article name I propose to move this page to Air (anime).---- (十八) 23:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Survey - Support votes
Survey - Oppose votes

Discussion

The blu-ray

Jesus Christ, $250 for one season? There's no way that's going to fly in America. Japan sure gets screwed in the electronics department. Anyways, can we get some information as to if the blu-ray version sold well? --SeizureDog 03:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any information about the blu-ray, but I'll try to find something.--(十八) 04:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the average income is higher in Japan. However, anime/video game companies tend to charge more over there because of the crazy otaku fanbase that will buy absolutely anything, no matter how expensive. Anyway, the Blu-ray discs of Air seem like a waste of money to me; other than the new OP, none of it is actually HD. It's just upscaled, which is quite lame. Moogy (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Anime

Any word on if this anime will be in English one day? I think it'd be nice to mention it in the article, too. ;) Vael Victus (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The anime's license is already mentioned in the article, though mainly in the Anime sub-section of the Adaptations section. The anime was licensed and released in English not too long ago.--十八 04:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, Vael seems to be a bit behind the times. "One day"? Psh, entire series and film are already released in English. Dub isn't half bad either from what I've seen. "GET AWAY FROM MY RAMEN".--SeizureDog (talk) 07:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

GA delisting

I have delisted this article from GA status. There are many unreferenced statements, including almost all of the Setting and themes, Movie, Music, and Gameplay sections. This badly fails criteria 2a and 2b of the Good article criteria regarding verifiability and factual accuracy. There also seems to be an excessive amount of plot (nearly 2 pages in word, and almost 850 words not even counting the character summaries). When the referencing issues are fixed, and the plot sections tightened up, feel free to renominate.AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

GAN on hold

GA review in accordance with the GA criteria

  1. Well written?: The article is rather informative, but could use a bit of clean up. Reading through, I noticed some redundancies that should be fixed.
    • Specifically, there are bits of information in some sections that seem more appropriate in other sections.
      • Plot details in the "Gameplay" section would be a better fit elsewhere. Much of the second paragraph can be condenseed with such details moved.
      • The mention of summer in the "Story" section seems more appropriate in the "Setting and themes" section.
    • Grammar note: "...into three segments — Dream, Summer, and Air — which..." em dashes should not have spaces on Wikipedia. "...into three segments—Dream, Summer, and Air—which..."
    • I know we've bumped heads on this before, but the character list can be condensed into a nice paragraph. Also some details mentioned seemed like trivia; "When she was young, she believed that baby chicks were young dinosaurs."
    • I would try trimming the "Story" section some. A recent trend with VG articles has been to minimize such sections.
    • There are a few other places where sentence structure can be streamlined, though most are minor and not enough to withhold GA. If you are curious about them let me know.
  2. Factually accurate?: Some sources used do not look to be reliable sources. Other sources need to be properly formatted.
    • Only some content on GameFAQs has been determined to be a reliable sources. Unfortunately, user reviews are not included in that as they are written by non-professional editors with no editorial oversight. All content that uses a GameFAQs review will either need to be removed or cited with another source.
    • Many web sources do not list the publisher of the web page. Author should be included in available.
    • Regarding the links to archive.org, Template:Cite web has two parameters for archived webpages, "archiveurl" and "archivedate". These two should be used in conjunction with the normal parameters, url, title, date, accessdate, puvlisher, and author.
  3. Broad in coverage?: The articles covers the standard subtopics I'd expect to see in a video game article and then some.
  4. Neutral point of view?: The article does not seem biased or to push a specific POV.
  5. Article stability? Article appears stable; no edit wars.
  6. Images?: Though each image has a fair use rationale, the usage of images seems to exceed the desired usage under fair use. Specifically the last four images do not seem to add too much to the article.
    • The images used for the characters is not need because the three characters are featured in the other images. An image of an adaptation can be included, but two covers is a bit excessive. I would pick either the anime or manga cover and include in the caption, "Cover of...".
    • Regarding the image of the original game cover, I would swap that out for the logo at the top. The logo is included in the game and adaptation cover, so it does not need to be a stand alone image.
    • FURs look to be a bit sparse too. I would expand the statements from a few words to actual sentences to strengthen the rationale.
    • The captions can be tweaked to improve the general reader's understanding.
      • The first one: "Example of whatAn average conversation looks like in Air. Here, Yukito isfeaturing the main character talking withto Misuzu."
      • The second: "The town of Air takes place in Kami, Japan."

Overall, the article has made some good steps forward since its GAR. Most of these issues are not too major and I believe they can be addressed in a weeks time. If you have any questions, feel free to ask here as I have the page on my watch list. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

Okay, so I think I got most of that. My first question is what you mean about the mention of summer in the "Story" section being more appropriate for "Setting and themes", since I am unsure of what sentences you are talking about. Next, I converted the main characters into a small paragraph, and tried to shorten story some, but I don't think I can shorten it anymore than it is now without losing important details or context. I have updated the references, and removed the ones to GameFAQs as you requested. I have also moved the game cover into the infobox, and removed the manga cover image, cleaned up the captions, and added the FUR template to all remaining images. My question here is would it be alright, then, to add in another image of a different cover of the Air game in the Release history section? The image displayed now was the original limited edition release, and the regular edition released nine months later was considerably different (third one down), which I might add was also considerable different from the next two releases shown above that one. Or, if not the second release, how about the fourth (Air Standard Edition) since it's the only one still being produced.--十八 07:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
It looks like most of the issues have been addressed.
  • The "Characters" section looks pretty good, though it reads a little like a brief plot summary. I would try switching the focus from the what the characters do to what type of characters they are.
  • Regarding the mention of summer: The first sentence of the "Story" section - "Set in the middle of summer, ..." Since you already have a section for the setting, it makes sense to include the time frame the game is set there.
  • Regarding the extra image, I would say add an image that illustrates something different about the game. Maybe a screen shot of an extra scene.
A few more issues I notice after a re-read.
  • The Freetype.net review looks to be a fan review, like GameFAQs. I understand finding suitable reviews for foreign games is difficult, but some source with some kind of editorial oversight will have to be used.
  • Something to consider if available, the game itself can be used to cite some plot details (see {{cite video game}}, and the game manual can be used from the gameplay section.
  • "Unlock" is more gaming jargon. Try "made accessible"; it's wordier, but is more generic for a non-gamer.
  • The "Music" and "Reception and sales" sections use a lot of quotes, some of which are quite long. I would summarize the content of the quote. For example, "'The soundtrack for...the game has received much praise, high sales and also some controversy since it was originally released,' states the Air information page on the website hentai.co.uk" could simply be "Overall, the soundtracks have been well received and met with high sales."
Aside from finding another source, most of the remaining issues are minor and I believe the article can be cleaned up in 6 days. I did a little copy editing to the article to clean up some prose. Feel free to change some of it back if the original meaning has been lost. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC))
Okay, I cleaned it up some more. First about the extra image, I honestly don't know what else aside from maybe one of the event CGs featured in the game which appear visibly different and more detailed than the more general sprites, one of which is seen in the image in the gameplay section. I realize the I can use the game as a primary cite, but I have never played through the game, though I do have it installed on my computer. I think that the visual fan book (which has a large portion dedicated to the gameplay) may have plot details and things that I could cite, and maybe aspects of the gameplay; it's the same thing I did for Little Busters! (cite 1 in the references). I have the fan book so it should be easy enough to find the things I need.
Not to mention that only a few days ago I came across an interview of Key on Air, sent directly from God to me and I also found a recent (January 2008) interview of Jun Maeda, the main contributor to Air. I haven't really gone through them yet, but when I do I'm hoping I'll find some very worthwhile information.--十八 22:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, after re-reading the article. There were a few more issues that popped out at me.
  • Some of the new content in the "Gameplay" section would be better suited in the "Development" section.
  • Hate to do this again, but Visual-novels.net (ref 3) looks to be another fan operated website with no editorial oversight. So their review does not constitute a reliable source.
  • The "Characters" and "Story" sections could use some citations, even one extra each would be fine.
  • The first paragraph of "Reception and sales" seems a bit hard to follow, though I'm not sure how to improve it.
If you're looking for game dialog to use as citations (which would be fine for the plot sections), I believe Visual-novels.net has a translation project going at [1]. As far as the reception content, maybe get a fresh set of eyes to do a copy edit. Not a lot would be needed as this is more of a minor issue. The article has really shaped up and is very close to passing. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC))
I could halfway agree with removing all the other review cites, but (even though I went ahead and did it anyway) I am very much against the removal of visual-novels.net as they appear to be the only active visual novel-centric website out there, and it's already next to impossible to find reliable reviews even in Japanese, especially considering that this game is close to 8 years old, and even more impossible to find reliable English-language reviews.--十八 23:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand the frustration, but the website—and the others before it—did not meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. Does that mean they are worthless? Absolutely not, as you've pointed out, they provide content that few others do. But the fact they don't do this professionally with a system to verify and filter the content is why the average reader can not fully rely on their content. A lot of video game articles suffer from the same thing; lack of reliable sources. Some game articles may never move past B-class because of this, but that's how the system is set up.
So sorry for putting the article through the ringer once again, but I doubt it'll have it's GA status removed again. The GA criteria would have to tightened to near FA standards for that to happen. I'll do a final re-read and make my decision. (Though it looks to be of GA quality in my opinion.) Good work on the article. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

GA pass

GA review in accordance with the GA criteria

  1. Well written?: Article looks to be well-written and follows Wikipedia's manual of style.
  2. Factually accurate?: Article is well sourced and sources look to satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources
  3. Broad in coverage?: The articles covers the standard subtopics I'd expect to see in a video game article and then some.
  4. Neutral point of view?: The article does not seem biased or to push a specific POV.
  5. Article stability? Article appears stable; no edit wars.
  6. Images?: Image use is not excessive and all images have appropriate FUR

The most pressing issues were addressed. All others are minor details and not enough to withhold GA status. All in all this is a good article and a good model for other visual novel articles. Good job and keep up the good work. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

Prices in article

FYI- The VG Project article guidelines have been revised, and part of the guidelines (WP:VGSCOPE) pertain to prices in articles. The specific part cites Wikipedia's WP:NOTCATALOG as the rationale behind it. Discussions and questions pertaining to the guideline can be directed to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC))

Image inclusion discussion: File:Air TV DVD Vol 01.png

I have started this thread per the removal and reinsertion of the image File:Air TV DVD Vol 01.png.

As far as I can tell, the image meets fair use criteria. The similarity between the game and the DVD in art styles is not, in and of itself, reason to remove one of the two images, as they depict two different adaptations in two different mediums entirely. I found this while looking for oversized images to shrink, so I will not be monitoring the conversation, only ensuring that it takes place before the image is deleted. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The image does not have a proper fair use rationale. The image is used as a cover image for this article, and fair use policies only allow for one cover image unless the second cover image received significant response. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Air_(video_game)/Archive_3&oldid=1145958640"