Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The World Ends with You
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:08, 7 September 2008 [1].
- Nominator(s): MASEM
- previous FAC (20:31, 31 August 2008)
Sourced have been checked in the first FAC (and have not changed from there) and reevaluated in the second, previous one. Images were rechecked in the previous FAC as well. The previous FAC failed due to open comments left by reviewers that were addressed though complete closure (and associated "support" !votes) was incomplete. In particular wording issues described by User:Dweller,; he has since commented that the article is now a strong candidate, so I am bringing it back for re-nomination. Again, I do need to note strongly that this article is made difficult by the terminology used by the game ("Player" and "Players" for some characters) that overlaps with the general terminology of the game user ("player"), so if you do find any point of confusion, please drop a note so that it can be fixed (this was a point Dweller mentioned on the previous FAC and was significantly addressed) --MASEM 13:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources still look good. You should note non-English language sources when given (How I missed that the first two times around, I do not know). (I'm not watching this, I trust you to fix that!) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Saw three that needed (both soundtrack refs, and Famitsu review source). --MASEM 15:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image all have appropriate licenses/author/source information, and detailed fair use rationales. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments OK, we're getting there. I'll bung comments below this. --Dweller (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Combat section sparsely referenced. --Dweller (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I peppered in a few more (referencing it is not a problem, I'm worried about over-referencing) --MASEM 15:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Personal opinion: Soundtrack section has too much detail, seemingly acknowledged by use of "show" wikiscripts. Suggest hiving less essential material off to a daughter article. --Dweller (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be difficult to support the notability of a separate article even though it could be done. There's little commentary on the actual soundtrack (the music is noted in context of the game, but not the soundtrack separately), and no development or other influences, so it would fail WP:MUSIC notability. (mind you, I'm well aware that there's a general issue on notability throughout WP including an RFC I helped to get going on it, so this may change in the future). --MASEM 15:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some of the {{cite web}} templates are formatted vertically, while the others are formatted horizontally. This should be consistent. The Prince (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Why? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That has no affect on the article output. It makes editing easier if they're the same but that's not an FA requirement. —Giggy 00:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it should be consistent. Preferably the vertical style for easier editing. The Prince (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That has no affect on the article output. It makes editing easier if they're the same but that's not an FA requirement. —Giggy 00:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Regardless of my comment, which I have struck, the article is very solid, especially the development section. I didn't read the "Plot" section as I might play the game sometime, but the rest is very good. I also think "Gameplay" should go before "Plot", but again that's not a requirement, and is just my personal opinion. Great work on the article. The Prince (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as a note, this is a exception to the normal case in that by explaining the setting via the plot first, the gameplay section is much easier to write; reversing them makes the gameplay section even more confusing and repetitive with the plot. --MASEM 14:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support; it is indeed a "strong candidate" and now meets FA criteria, IMO. —Giggy 00:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support vastly improved, now FA quality IMHO --Dweller (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article's prose looks to have tightened up since the last FAC. Quick question though, I couldn't find too much on GoNintendo. What makes it a reliable source? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- It is not as strong as IGN or the likes (it's just above blog quality). However, the point it is used for, the fact the soundtrack is on now on iTunes, I don't think is a very contentious point that needs a highly reliable source. --MASEM 17:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did some more digging. Federated media calls them the "most up-to-date source for Nintendo news".[2] Never heard of Federated Media before but they seem legit/reliable enough.[3] GoNintendo has been cited on a CNET Asia blog posting.[4] Joystiq has cited them before too.[5] It is a little weak, but looks to be within limits. Though I'd be on the look out for another source should the article ever go up for FAR. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- It is not as strong as IGN or the likes (it's just above blog quality). However, the point it is used for, the fact the soundtrack is on now on iTunes, I don't think is a very contentious point that needs a highly reliable source. --MASEM 17:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - It's definitely up to par at this point. TTN (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: My main concerns were addressed in the previous FAC and my source issue above doesn't look to be of any serious concern. The article looks to be well written, comprehensive, and well sourced. Good job again Masem. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Neutral—I'm finding redundancies and misplaced formality/archaic words in the gameplay section. Everything below that will probably need more work. — Deckiller 06:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I ran through the suggested sections and made light copyedits. I think that the prose is in good shape. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabomb87 left some invisi comments that I dealt with; if there are still issues on the language, can you please point out a couple examples as to help ID the rest? --MASEM 14:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I ran through the suggested sections and made light copyedits. I think that the prose is in good shape. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, there is hidden text within the prose (doesn't mirror, print and is not accessible). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disabled auto-collapse on the soundtrack lists, doesn't look like too much problem to be this way (See my previous comment about the difficulty of making those tracks into a separate article and notability). --MASEM 16:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Concer I believe that the soundtrack section does not meet WP:WEIGHT and that mentioning its availability could violate WP:SOAP. I do not know if this is 100% correct, but I think it warrants an in-depth discussion at a notice board.
- Published game soundtracks (as opposed to just listing songs that are in the game's soundtrack but not released on any audio CD or download service) are very common in video game articles, or when they merit it, discussion by themselves, so I don't see how this is a SOAP issue (advertizing? Talking about the game itself would be the same). Including the track lists is also a part of the same (same for any album that's typically mentioned on WP in the first place, game or not). The WEIGHT issue is one I pointed out above - when its not hidden, it does look large, but the albums themselves, notable in the context of the game, would not have their own notability and a separate article would likely be challenged. --MASEM 18:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mentioning that it is available for download is the "soap" concern, not the listing of the tracks. The weight was just to point ou that there aren't many resources on the songs but it is given a significant size. I also wonder about having the "hidden/show" option and how it deals with WP:Accessibility. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Published game soundtracks (as opposed to just listing songs that are in the game's soundtrack but not released on any audio CD or download service) are very common in video game articles, or when they merit it, discussion by themselves, so I don't see how this is a SOAP issue (advertizing? Talking about the game itself would be the same). Including the track lists is also a part of the same (same for any album that's typically mentioned on WP in the first place, game or not). The WEIGHT issue is one I pointed out above - when its not hidden, it does look large, but the albums themselves, notable in the context of the game, would not have their own notability and a separate article would likely be challenged. --MASEM 18:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.