Wikipedia:Peer review/Final Fantasy XI/archive1

Final Fantasy XI

Probably one of the final fantasy articles that has recieved the smallest amount of work. Let the review begin! Judgesurreal777 13:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Some points:
  • The first thing I wanted to find out was what the expansion packs were called. And I was surprised there were no sections dealing directly with this, instead having been mentioned in the plot or races sections. I think a good thing would be to write a synopsis of the main plot of the game, then have a subsection on each of the main plots for the expansions (zilart/promathia/that new one) for example and then elaborate upon what these expansion packs bring. (More detailed synopses of the expansions can be forked in their own articles).
  • Reviews are an absolute must and with a Japanese game link FF, it would be nice to have a japanese source too (like Famitsu). Western sources will be very easy to find, pretty much every single gaming publication will have reviewed this. Also make a mention of the expansion packs.
  • How many players are there? Altogether and in a single server at any time?
• Hahnchen 00:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

One thing I wanted to respond to here: As you can see in the Plot sub-section of the Gameplay section, there are no less than eight different, major plot branches in this game. It hurts my head to try to think of how to summarize the different storylines in the game, or try to boil them down to one overall summary. I honestly wouldn't even know where to start. I would be very afraid that any attempts to do so would resemble the mess that was the storyline section of Final Fantasy VII before some very dedicated people cleaned it up, or that it would look like the crufty nightmare that List of Final Fantasy XI characters is in places. If we could hash out the relevant points to include and what to leave out, I'd be willing to take a stab at it, but as it is I almost find it easier to let the game setting speak for the storyline, as much of a cop-out as that is. -RaCha'ar 21:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

One option you have is to work on it elsewhere (either a separate sandbox page or offline), and not insert it until you're happy with it. I've written sections this way, and it definitely helps in making it cohesive and less random. Nifboy 22:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is just one story with many different aspects and parts. Take a look at The History of Vana'diel, despite being on seperate pages in the mission log, they are all interwoven, build on each other and are just one big story. --Anibas 11:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• More points:
  • WP:LEAD needs expanded.
  • Lacking a basic description of gameplay; assume a reader knows little about video games and nothing about MMO parlence.
  • The gameplay section has some strategy-esque statements in it. For example, "Once the player has attained level 18 on any job, he may complete a Support Job quest in either Selbina or Mhaura." The facts that it occurs specifically at level 18 and in two specific areas is of no real consequence.
  • The plot section seems rather weaselly; "a sense of individual heroism" is a rather subjective statement that ought to be cited.
  • The economy section contains some outright original research: "Hard figures are unknown, but it would not be far-fetched to assume that some (if not many) servers may have a GDP of well over a trillion Gil."? Kill it with fire.
  • Ambiguous statements: It is not obvious whether PvP takes place "in the wild" or in specific set-aside areas. Similarly, I thought "engaging in successful battles with an enemy in a region" (national alleigance section) referred specifically to PvP. Also, "Depending on the rules set by the MC" -- What's an MC?
  • Three-sentence "music" section needs expanded or merged elsewhere.
  • "Ingame controversy" should be remade into a general-purpose reception/reviews/criticism section, and cite sources. One rule I live by is "The fandom doesn't matter", mostly because they're virtually impossible to cite using good sources.
• Nifboy 01:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Stuff from a longtime editor of this article:
  • I hate the Game Economy section and always have. I totally agree with Nifboy that it smacks of OR, and I always wanted to cut the amateur economist babble out of the article. However, I've been uncertain as to how to acknowledge and explain the difficulties of the game economy without those terms, so this has remained intact for a long time.
  • I've already started going through and trying to cull out references to game mechanics. I hadn't really realized what a mess the article had become from that point of view.
  • I've also never been a fan of the controversy/gilseller portions of this article, which have never been NPOV, and I'm not sure if they ever can be.

I've not played the game for several months now, and I'm hoping that some distance from it will allow me to look at the article with a more objective eye, compared with whatever lingering expertise I have from having played it for two and a half years (sob!). I'm looking forward to seeing the results of the review.

RaCha'ar 15:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Currently parts of the article aren't really ordered, for example the reception, jumping between dates and console, using different numbers for the play base (once it's the registered users, once it's the daily playing users). Furthermore I see another problem with the article, you currently have over fourty references almost all of them in the Development and Reception parts of the article. In the reception part there are definitely too many, almost every sentence there has its own reference, they are distracting from the text. --Anibas 18:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The Release section is short and very choppy. It needs re-wording at the least, and some structure. --PresN 22:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 23:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)