Talk:Universe of Kingdom Hearts/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article currently has way too many non-free images, and spends most of the article talking about in-universe details. I started the GAR at AnmaFinotera's urging. I'm giving the article one week; I'll try to work on it a bit if I can as well. --Pres N 18:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Article is in need of a fresh copy edit. Not fixed A lot of statements are written in a confusing manner, rather than being clear and concise. The first two sentences, for example, could be more clearly written as The Kingdom Hearts video game series, developed by Square Enix and the Walt Disney Company, is set in an unnamed fictional universe containing numerous self-contained worlds based on Square Enix games and Disney films. The article also fails WP:WAF due to the heavily in-universe tone of many of the individual entries. It fails the general MoS by having sections containing only 1-2 sentences.
It is factually accurate and verifiable. Fixed

Much improved, but still in need of a copy edit to bring prose quality up some more. Major issue of in-universe writing fixed along with some confusing statements. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Numerous unsourced statements. Also using sources of questionable quality. Kingdom Hearts Ultimania appears to be a fansite with quite a bit of possibly copyvio content and not a reliable source. ffkh.onlinfo.net is a blog - what makes it reliable? The lack of sourcing on many interpretive statements and others being sourced to the game rather than a reliable secondary gives the impression the article contains quite a bit of OR.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Reception section focuses more on the graphics and the games as a whole, with little reception information about the actual Kingdom Hearts universe.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Contains three non-free images that are illustrating single items from the universe but that are not supported by the text or do they add significant understanding to a readers comprehension of a topic.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
This article fails many of the basics of the Good Article criteria. If the issues noted above are not addressed within a reasonable time, it will be delisted. While not a criteria of the GA process, I'd also question the general notability of the entire topic, considering the few third-party sources are all more about the games as a whole and not the actual topic of the Universe of the Kingdom hearts. With proper paring down, it seems to me this could fit well in the main Kingdom Hearts article, which is currently not even linking to this article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I'll take a look at it this week to see what can be done. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Me too. An idea: a section on "Disney worlds" or "Disney-based worlds". One paragraph would be on all of those worlds, merging most of the individual content. Then another paragraph on notable things in certain worlds (specifically, how Disney Castle was removed from KH1, Timeless River special effects, 100 Acre Wood, Atlantica rhythm game, Tron, Port Royal live-action stuff), and then a section on original worlds, removing most of the physical description. Thoughts? Axem Titanium (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was one of my initial thoughts too. I was going to refresh my memory by going over the sources first, but if you feel up to the task go for it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Removed ffkh.onlinfo.net. The only citations from Kingdom Hearts Ultimania are the developer interviews. Is this a problem? We didn't cite any of KHU's original content. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because they are copies of other people's interviews, making them a copyright violation unless KHU has explicit permission to repost them. These need to be re-sourced to the original interviews where the full details are likely to be available. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that true even if they did the translation themselves? It should count as fair use on their part and then we can cite them. Otherwise, I'll try to find the original citations. It's really just an issue of transparency for the reader. I'm sure they would rather see the translation of the interview, rather than the original Japanese. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because they didn't have permission to translate it either, so its still a violation. For relevant parts, a quote can be added with a translation, to the citation, if necessary, though many anime/manga articles source to Japanese sources without any issues. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I didn't know you needed permission to translate stuff. Oh well, I'll go dig for originals. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To just do a line or two or for personal use, its fine, but translating the entire interview falls under copyright violations. One has to have permission, usually from the publisher or the author, before you can republish a translation of a work. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not suggesting this, but just trying to grasp all options. What about a merger with Kingdom Hearts (series)? If the issues cannot be adequately addressed, should the article be merged? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I think that would actually be a good idea, particularly with the cleaned up version. I can't see why it couldn't fit in there now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's alright, I'd rather save that as a last resort. Also, I'd need to get some input from the editors at WP:FT because the article is a part of Wikipedia:Featured topics/Kingdom Hearts. I'll continue to work on the article and see how much it can be improved. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yeah, sorry about not being able to work on this for the past few days. Been busy with work. Hopefully back now. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do what we can with the time we have Axem. I didn't even touch the article until yesterday. :-p Hopefully we can whip it into shape though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I'm fine with extending it another week if desired :) Long as its being actively worked on, I tend to give time as needed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! We appreciate your understanding here. Just a little update on sources, I e-mailed the webmaster at KHU and he said he no longer has the scans from the relevant Famitsu articles. I'm going to keep digging, but does anyone know a good central resource for that, by any chance? Axem Titanium (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they got some scans from another site. The latest ones about 358/2 Days and BBS sometimes credited http://ff7ac.hotcafe.to/. Not sure if the older ones came from there though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hey AnmaFinotera, what do you think of the prose and sourcing now (aside from the translation source issues above)? What sections do you still think need work? Axem Titanium (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is much improved (great work!), I'd still recommend having a copy editor give it a once over to streamline and tweak the prose. Fansites are still being used (as noted) and still quite a few unreferenced statements. Still has excessive non-free images and the reception section issues have not yet been addressed. Do you think more time would help with regard to the articles and sourcing as that is really the biggest issue at this point? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I guess I'll ask Guyinblack25 to once-over it (and maybe PresN, since he didn't have a hand in writing it) and then promise to put it through peer review after this GAR is over. How does that sound? The reception section is next on my to-do list for this article. I'm letting the fansite sourcing issue simmer for a bit while I wait for people to return my e-mails. More time would be great, sorry that this GAR is taking so long -_-. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AnmaFinotera- I just expanded the reception section. Let me know if it's satisfactory. I'll give the article another sweep for copy edits probably tomorrow. Are there specific prose issues to look for? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Oh, thanks for doing that :). Real life has gotten in the way for the past few days. Still no progress on the sources front, sorry. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has some more on the worlds/universe, but the first paragraph is still more about the game as a whole. As noted, there are still quite a few places sources have not been replaced yet. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AnmaFinotera- I'm not sure I follow, because from my perspective the first paragraph pertains to the the series' setting. The combination of the two intellectual properties is a big element to this topic. I figured the press's reaction to that combination pertains to the article. Same with the graphics. Praise was given to the how the worlds looked in the game. Since the worlds are a specific element in this article, it makes sense to me that critical commentary about it would apply here. Unless I'm missing a different angle to this.

Once the major prose issues are done, we'll tackle the sourcing issues. Thank you for your patience in the process. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

See, to me, the first paragraph is about the concept more than the actual implementation, but on the whole, it is certainly better than what it was :) The big issue now is the sourcing more than anything else as sourcing is a total deal breaker on a GA. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion above, the decrease in activity, and the seeming very lengthy time needed to find replacement sources, I have delisted this as a good article. Would encourage continued consideration of merging back to the Kingdom Hearts series page, or if kept, continued work on finding the additional sourcing needed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]