Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Kefka Palazzo/1

Kefka Palazzo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Looks unlikely that Axem Titanium will find that spare afternoon, but in any case, there is no consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article overrelies mostly on lists, and some of the cited sources do not entirely say what they are cited for. It is not broad on its coverage, and some of the claim were unsourced (mainly from appearances section). Only the GameSpy source were useful that was cited at the article [1], but thats it. It needs a heavy clean up to fulfill GA criteria. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 04:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Article need some significant work, and it is a bit confusing to have both an analysis section with heavy quoting and a reception section. The way the references are set up for the article too make it really difficult to fix, not gonna lie.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Needs a rewrite in places, such as the reception. Unusual separate "analysis" section can be merged with reception as it is essentially an aspect of the character's reception. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources "do not entirely say what they are cited for"? This is a serious allegation so I would hope you would tag the ones that you think fail verification. I'm also not sure what you mean specifically when you say that the article is not broad in its coverage. What, in your mind, is missing? Axem Titanium (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess theres bit problem with my rationale, but above editors already agreed that the article that also was promoted decade has a lot of issues. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 14:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so what are your actual issues with the article? The point of GAR is to improve the article, not delist it. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delisting without improvements. I... know that your goal is turning FF into GT. But, just looking at the article issues, it contaibs mostly passing mentions from the game reviews and a lot of listicles. I'm not sure why would you still call these a "good article". GlatorNator (ᴛ) 14:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping in here, but a lot of those sources are still from when I revived that article from a redirect over ten years ago, back when we were grabbing everything saying *something* to try and make an article work. And even now I wouldn't have cited a lot of that. It never really got cleaned up like others did, while standards improved.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who's saying we should keep it without improvements? I'm trying to understand your problems with the article so it can be improved. Which sources are being misrepresented? What about the article is "not broad in its coverage"? Passing mentions in game reviews and listicles are a notability/RS problem, not a GA criterion. Listicles are allowed as long as the source is reliable. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then the article fails about being "broad on its coverage", since a lot of the content were just trivial. But, the article could be potebtially saved after implementing all the sources that Cukie placed and maybe cutting down some irrelevant listicles. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 20:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What parts, specifically, of the content are trivial to you? Since you've chosen not to answer the question three times, I assume that there are no misrepresented sources that you could find? If so, would you please ~~strikethrough~~ that criticism in your nomination? I'm getting frustrated that you're just vaguely gesturing at the article and saying 'look at all the problems' without actually identifying them. This isn't the first time you've done this. I understand that you're very enthusiastic about article improvement but you're also still very new here and this shotgun approach to article reassessment is just making a lot of work on a deadline for others. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess most of the irrelevant stuff were cleabed up, thanks to Cukie. These content could be reworded "IGN ranked him sixth on their list of the "Top 25" Final Fantasy characters of all time, noting that several factors, such as his dialogue and appearance, contributed to his memorability as a character; in a "Reader's Choice" edition of the article he placed eighth, with similar comments. He was also ranked 18th in IGN's "Top 100 Videogame Villains" list. GamePro ranked him 33rd on the top 47 most diabolical video game villains of all time, citing both his "genocide" and his enslavement of Terra. GamesRadar ranked him the most "outrageous camp bad guys", stating that when compared to Kefka, Final Fantasy VII antagonist Sephiroth seems as interesting as a dead accountant painted brown." When most of the sources says the same thing. Reworded it for example like Kekfa has been described as the best FF character[1][2] and one of the best video game villain[1][2][3]. Also, the insivible sources should be implemended. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Personally I don't think there's an issue with broadness in the article - the main problem is failing the "well-written" criteria. The reception is a lot of scattershot quotes and numbers on "best of" lists that is mostly incomprehensible for the lay reader. One of the paragraphs is just repeating "he is the best villain" over and over from different sources. Less is more in this case - a few good reception sources stating why he is important would be better than dozens of tiny mentions in reviews and lists that don't explain much of why he got there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably classify myself as a near-lay reader Zxcvbnm, and I don't think there's anything I would say is "incomprehensible". The changes you suggest would certainly improve the article, but they are not necessarily needed for GA status. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still working on integrating sources for this. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment interested editor above probably abandoned the article. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not abandoned. Busy. People have lives outside Wikipedia. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Axem Titanium needs the time, they will be given up to three months, Greenish Pickle!. Please feel free to help. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. GAR has no deadline anyway. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 10:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Axem Titanium do you plan to continue your work on this article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've been moving apartments this past week and have had very little time for editing. I plan to get back to this soon. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Axem Titanium gentle reminder. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I struck my Delist, as I feel the article is in a lot better shape now. While there is a lot more reception that can be added, it's better than it was. One section that does need some light work is the Dissidia commentary, as it's a bit confusing there. Additionally some commentary about his two designs could also be added to the dev section to flesh that out.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.