Wikipedia:Peer review/The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past/archive1

The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past

This is a current effort of the featured article drive, so I'd like to hear suggestions and such on how to improve it. Andre (talk) 20:50, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Off the top of my head:

~~Box scan in infobox is dented.~~
Japanese-English differences should be condensed and turned into prose.
~~Manga section seems out of place, remove it?~~
No references.
Although it is mentioned in the lead it was very popular, there is no sales data or mention of review scores.
Is there consensus that this is a prequel to the first two? What exactly does the back of the packaging say?
"returned to the original's formula of all exploration and combat taking place in a persistent overhead world" Huh? There should be a mention of traveling overworld, but all major combat takes place in dungeons.

-- Norvy (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your last two points, the article is clear on what the back of the box says in several places. And, an overhead world is not an overworld - overhead is referring to the view, as distinct from the side-scrolling combat of Zelda II. Andre (talk) 18:10, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I uploaded a new box scan that doesn't have a dent, and has better contrast. With all that, it's even a smaller filesize! Andre (talk) 21:53, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

As for the timeline placement, I speak for the community that there has been a consensus; not in the Wikipedia Zelda community, but the Zelda community altogether. This is the most common and widely-believed timeline (the placement of the bolded games are undeniable fact):

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time

The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask

The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker

The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past

The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening

The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages

The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons

The Legend of Zelda

Zelda II: The Adventure of Link

Not sure about any of Flagship's games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:47, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

This is all well and good, but so what? It's fancruft, and irrelevant fancruft at that. It's awkward and uncomfortable in the context of what should be an at least passably scholarly writeup of the game. Speculation on the timeline of the games (assuming they even have a consistent timeline) doesn't belong on Wikipedia. There's enough, in all likelihood, to comment on the quasi-prequel status of ALttP, as it is mentioned in various places (and alluded to in the title), but beyond that makes the thing look deeply unprofessional. For practical purposes, the final sentence of the paragraph dealing with the timeline (the one mentioning Ocarina) should be excised. It's speculation, arguably original research, and of questionable relevance. Other than that:

NPOV and/or otherwise awkward prose, most noticably in the gameplay section: "leading the series forward," the strained "two world" connection with Metroid Prime 2, etc. The gameplay section in general is overlong and reeks of fanboyism. There should be less contextualizing: don't assume someone reading this article is familiar with other games in the series, or basic conventions of the genre.
The rationale "Setting"/"Game Plot" split in the "Storyline" section eludes me, especially as the latter is basically empty. Is there any reason this section needs to be subdivided?
The article desperately needs more attention to popular reception, preferably with reference to things like sales figures. There's a bit of handwaving in the introduction about the game's popularity, but it's all very vague. In general, the article should have a couple of cited references.
Some overall layout concerns: the four image block at the end of the gameplay section is a bit awkward, IMO. Ideally, those images should be displayed inline, or should at least be smaller than they are. Some things, like the Chris Houlihan Room, probably should be worked into other sections if at all possible to provide a stronger basic framework for the article.
As an aside, it would be nice to have the box art for the GBA version on display somewhere.

In short, the thing needs to be tightened up considerably, both in general presentation and in prose quality. There's a lot of good information there, but it doesn't really feel like a coherent whole as of yet. – Seancdaug 03:14, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

There is a timeline, this much is known. Miyamoto and Aonuma have said that they have a file cabinet filled with information on how they all link up. Many Zelda fans argued and argued, forming this timeline using evidence. OoT's placing is a given, as Miyamoto said it was the earliest Zelda. Majora's Mask's manual says it's three months after OoT. TWW makes clear references to OoT (including even having windows with Saria, Rauru, Ruto, Darunia, Impa, Nabooru and Zelda). After that, the connections get iffier, but if you delve into them, there are clear connections. The Zelda timeline is nowhere near cruft.

I didn't even notice that. Whoops.

I've tried to find that information, but it's hard to find for some reason.

I tried to tell Andre that it was bad (I always hated the usage), but he disagreed, so I decided not to make a national case over it.

There's already an article with the boxart on the GBA version.

What about censorship in FFVI? I would say they both deserve sections equally. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a decent article, but it has a long way to go before becoming featured. My suggestions..

Dig up some information about the game's production and release. I remember hearing somewhere that it was Nintendo's big selling point for the SNES launch, but it got delayed (how typical..).
This page says Famitsu gave it a 9 and three 10s, it's highest score ever at the time. That's gotta be notable to include.
Give references for everything that's not easily verifiable. John Williams cooked up the music into a concert suite? Either include a source, or remove it (I actually doubt that's true..).
It's a bit odd that the Chris Houlihan room gets its own section.
Does anyone have a clue why it's called "A Link to the Past"? Heh, I wrote a FAQ for the game and I don't even know. :p

Coffee 22:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will do.

Will do eventually.

Read above, Coffee.

Read below, Coffee. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Link to the Past is a pun - it takes place in the past (relative to the first two Zelda titles) and is a "link" to that era, and the main character's name is Link. As for John Williams, I don't think that this is a true fact. Andre (talk) 20:37, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

A pretty good article, though far from featured status. I found it odd that the plot summary circumvented all the pendant and crystal dungeons. They comprise most of the gameplay. I read in the talk about a deleted boss section; although it proably would have been too much in depth, you could give the boss names, or say that you often used the dungeon's new item against the boss, or say that they were very elaborate with strengths and weaknesses that have influenced newer games; or any combination. Perhaps there should be a section on Four Swords, at least more than a link (I think there's one, there may not be). Keep working! HereToHelp 21:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]