Talk:Final Fantasy (video game)/GA1

GA Reassessment

I didn't see any response to this, so I'm starting a GA review. The review started with this timestamp, not the one below. Pagra shtak 21:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references in this article aren't up to snuff. What makes http://collector.5gigs.com/series/ff1ver.txt a reliable source? http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=021228 is a little flimsy for its sentence. It doesn't say anything about the ears at all. Reference 11 gives the publisher as MobyGames, but the page doesn't say MobyGames anywhere on it. Reference 12 gives the author as "Unicorn Lynx", when the author is Johnathan Metts. There are several {{Fact}} templates in the article, and the "WonderSwan Color" and "Musical Score" sections are completely unreferenced. Pagra shtak 23:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposed to go in WP:GAR if I'm understanding the intentions correctly. Gary King (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely deal with GA, so I might be doing this incorrectly, but I'm following the instructions for an individual reassessment, not a community reassessment. It was my understanding from the instructions that I transclude this on the article talk page and not the GAR page. Pagra shtak 18:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay; is the goal of this to ultimately end up with a result of either a Keep or a Delist? Gary King (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The goal is to improve the article, but this will end with a keep or delist—hopefully a keep. Honestly, I didn't even want to mess with any process, so I just posted my concerns about the references on the talk page, hoping someone would fix the worst of it. They sat there for a couple of days with no improvements, so I felt I needed to start a GAR to get some response. The article was promoted back in 2006 and it's clear the article isn't up to current GA standards. It probably needed a review in any case. Pagra shtak 18:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I agree that the article needs work. I thought these /GA subpages were reserved for GA reviews for GAN, though, but I rarely do reviews for GAR so I don't really know :) Gary King (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go through the references for which there are questions, shall we? Some of these may be reliable but I'm not sure, so here we go!

Here they are; now, which ones are clearly notable or not notable? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I marked two. Gary King (talk) 01:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see some work has been done, but mostly a few days ago. Are these sources still under discussion? Pagra shtak 18:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I need each and every one of these marked for their reliability so I can replace them, and am not sure which ones are and are not. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't hurt to change some of them anyways. Taking a look at the MCV ref at random, it's used to reference a release date, but the article was written prior to release. Even if MCV is reliable, it really should be replaced by something written post-release. Such a reference shouldn't be too difficult to find. Pagra shtak 19:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, most of them have been removed, and the ones that remain are reliable. Now, gotta format the references, and fill this article with content and references. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This reassessment appears to have stalled. The removal of unreliable sources has left many unsourced claims. Some of them may not need a cite at the GA level, some could be reworded or removed without affecting broadness of coverage. However, it looks to me like the article needs to be delisted. In addition to the lack of sources, the backstory is somewhat detailed and in universe in style, with only two references to the gaming perspective, the first being rather awkward (200 years before the start of the game would today be 1808?). If someone is enthusiastic to fix the article right now, then please say. Geometry guy 10:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now delisting per the above. Geometry guy 14:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]