Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/The Legend of Zelda (series)/1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Legend of Zelda (series)

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delist per consensus below that some of the images do not meet our fair use criteria, that there is material needing citation where it is not provided, and that the text needs work to ensure the article is broad but does not go into unnecessary detail. In addition to streamlining the body of the article, I would also recommend expanding the lead a bit to ensure it is stands alone as an adequate summary of the article. Articles can be renominated at WP:GAN at any time. Geometry guy 13:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple non-free images that do not meet our criteria (WP:NFCC). Sections nearly devoid of references. For such an important series, there's very little in the way of impact and broad-style coverage. In my opinion fails criterion 1, 2, 3, and 5 of WP:GA? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you expand a little on these issues, to provide some direction for improvement and clarify why you believe the criteria are not met? Geometry guy 13:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. File:Legend of Zelda NES.PNG, File:Zeldadx 1.jpg, File:ZELDA OCARINA OF TIME 2.jpg, File:The Wind Waker Link waves goodbye.png, and File:TwilightPicture.jpg are all decorative in nature. Is it nice to have some visual evolution? Yeah, but I'm not sure how they meet WP:NFCC. There's no critical commentary on the aesthetic styles. Meanwhile, entire swaths of the section (from "The next game released in the series was Four Swords Adventures for the GameCube..." to "...Phantom Hourglass was released on June 23, 2007 in Japan, October 1, 2007 in North America and October 19, 2007 in Europe." are entirely unreferenced.
Likewise, all of the 'History' section save the last paragraph is unreferenced. There's a bunch of undeveloped sections with single-sentences attempts at paragraphs, such as 'Music' and 'Nature of the protagonist'. 'Other incarnations' is entirely unreferenced. Finally the reception section reads off as a hastily-assembled mishmash of facts (sentences for some games, a paragraph for Ocarina of Time) with very little in terms of unifying structure. Then there's the massive table to the right which looks like utter jargon to the layperson. In short, I would have simply delisted this article if it weren't the lead for a good topic. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The cel-shaded style and 3D nature of the TWW and OoT are touched on in the article, but we could easily fit in some reception info on those. The TP image is not needed, same with the LA image.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The game score table looks incredibly simple to me. I'm not sure how you would consider it jargon. "Other incarnations" has at least 10 references, but we could easily fit some more in. I can't see what's wrong with the Music and Nature sections, though the Nature section could stand to use some more sources and info (like how Miyamoto has Link be silent so that he can be a "Link" between the player and game). The History section could easily be sourced to the game scripts as well. I also don't see what's wrong with the reception section.
So, I think we should easily be able to address your critiques if we:
  • Remove the LA and TP images, and add info on the design evolution to a "development" (director's reason for 3D, cel-shaded) and "reception" section.
  • Add historical cites to the "Other incarnations" section - basically cites that assert that these things do indeed exist, or that they are uncanonical. Maybe a cite to Link and Zelda's page on the SSBB website, some reception info on the spin-offs, etc.
  • Add the "Why is Link silent" Miyamoto quote to the nature section, add some cites (in-game quotes, etc.).
  • Cite the history section to specific quotes from the games.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. It's not the number of references that matters, it's the fact that entire swaths of the article are entirely unsupported by reliable citations as required. The table uses abbreviations that people will have no idea what they mean unless they click away from the article, and uses junk numbers (some of which do not even appear in the citations themselves anymore.) The reception section is an awful and random combination of facts with no flow. ...And while I'm thinking about it, File:Link Super Mario RPG.png should be axed as well. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it isn't the number of inline citations that matters, but that where citation is needed it is provided. The GA criterion (2b) here is pretty explicit: "reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)". Geometry guy 19:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm not understanding what you mean about the abbreviations. They're names, that's honestly the only thing you need to know about them. They don't mean anything.
I don't see any problem with the reception section. The first paragraph covers the accolades the series has gotten, the second covers the reception of its music, and the third records it has broken. At best, it could have the record section combined with the accolades, and create some sort of segue to the music section, but I honestly can't see how it's any different from any other similar featured article's reception section.
The Mario RPG image is specifically mentioned in the body, and serves as an example of Zelda cameos in other works. It's completely supported by the fair use guidelines.
Honestly, the only sections that are low on cites are those that cover absolutely inarguable information - in the "Other incarnations" section, the only "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons" are the two marked with "citation needed" - every single other claim in that section is a self-evident fact, and could not be sourced beyond basically saying "Yes, this game does exist". Every single statistic is sourced, and every quote is as well (either with a ref or as part of the text). The only section that really needs more cites is the History section, which needs to be sourced to in-game, manual, or Hyrule Encyclopedia quotes. Instead of reiterating your claim that 2b is not being fulfilled, can you list specific lines that you feel are not appropriately sourced?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist It's kinda a mess as an article, and after cleanup would land up in a different form almost entirely it seems than it is currently, making a re-GAN more or less a necessity. It's Start-class at the moment, maybe C at most.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically is wrong with it? I'm hearing that multiple sections aren't appropriately sourced - besides the "History" section, where and how is this occuring? There's no way for us to fix the article if you just say "It's terrible, let's punish it."Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DelistShould people add cite tags? I think it is pretty clear that many specific claims are not cited, so tagging them would only be useful if editors really don't see them (and is almost certain to cause complaints of "tag-bombing"). The number of tags already in the article seems enough to warrant delisting. Otherwise, i think the writing is quite poor quality in places - it really does look like the article was well-written at one point, but new additions have not been integrated properly. This is especially obvious with the many single sentence paragraphs haphazardly added onto the end of sections. It needs rewriting to make it a cohesive whole, and random factoids or repetition removed. I also agree with the world-wide view template: presumably huge amounts are written about this series worldwide and especially in Japan, as it is a Japan-originating game. YobMod 11:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, whoever comments next, give us something to work with. You guys are doing a whole lot of talking with no substance, and this mindless bureaucracy without any attempt to assist improvement is getting mind-addling. I've already tried to decode your comments, and you told me I was wrong - well, what do we need to DO?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, honestly, instead of piling on the same empty comments, you guys could be actually helping by at least starting some kind of list here of what specifically needs to be done. I honestly can't even figure out what Yobmod and Kung Fu Man are talking about, or how it would help us fix the article.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty simple:
1) Find reliable sources to use for citations to replace every citation needed tag.
2) Find reliable sources for the release history section. Every claim of "xxx was released on yyyy" could reasonly be fact tagged, so most need sourcing. Generally, whenever an entire paragraph is uncourced, it rings alarm bells.
3) Find Japanese sources and ensure the article at least covers what they say up to the level of "broad" coverage.
4) Assess which images are being used for decoration rather than adding substantative understanding. Either remove them (eg Mario image), or find a reliable source that discusses the art style/graphics for each one, and add some text about it.
5) Rewrite the article to appropriately incorporate the single sentence paragraphs into larger paragraphs. Get a copyeditor to check the article to make sure it flows well, and remove any rednundancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobmod (talk • contribs)
  • Delist - I agree with David Fuchs (talk · contribs), eight fair-use images does seem to be a bit much for this article. I second the concerns raised above by Yobmod (talk · contribs) about writing quality and sourcing issues. Directly above, Yobmod provided some really helpful pointers as to how the article can be improved upon, but at this point it's really lacking in cites and in its quality of writing, flow, short paragraphs. Sadly, Kung Fu Man (talk · contribs) is correct, at this point the article is probably in a state of Start-class or C-class. Cirt (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the following images need to go:

The others seem informative. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Informative isn't a requirement of WP:NFCC, because really anything can inform--a nonfree image can inform readers of the appearance of a character, for example, but that doesn't really mean it can still fly the other clauses of NFCC. I would especially say any artwork/promo nonfree content should go, because it's not actually demonstrating gameplay or anything that was the subject of commentary. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the purpose of this comment, because I didn't mention anything about keeping the others. I said we should scrap the three images I listed. My interpretation of point 8 of NFCC is that the image must be informative: "significantly increase readers' understanding [...] and its omission would be detrimental". But your comment about artwork/promo seems to be in general agreement with removing the three images I listed. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/The_Legend_of_Zelda_(series)/1&oldid=1088284998"