Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Spira (Final Fantasy X)/archive1

Spira (Final Fantasy X)

Until recently this article has been under the rather limitng influence of a handfull of editors. I have intentions on working on it, but I have nor the time nor desire to start an Edit war. So I wanted to get different opinions about how to imrpove this article from other 'fresh' editor that would not favor any of the editor but the well being of the article itself. Any ideas are welcome.Nnfolz 18:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By 'a handfull of editors', the nominator refers to the membership of WikiProject Final Fantasy. I would point interested editors at Talk:Spira (Final Fantasy X)#Article name and Talk:Spira (Final Fantasy X)#Peer Review to see how this nomination came to be made. >Gamemaker 21:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that the article is in a transition stage at this point, in the process of being altered to accomodate the situation that led to this nomination, as can be viewed at Talk:Spira (Final Fantasy X)#Peer Review. To summarize: The article's not consistent with the standardization of articles of its type, and truthfully needed to go through the standardization process, anyway, sad as I am to say so; a situation like this was inevitable. In that respect, I suppose we owe you something of a thanks, Nnfolz, as it's best we got it over with now. Ryu Kaze 14:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just gonna say my three or four bits:

It should be more transparant which detailed events are backstory, which are those of FFX, and which are those of FFX-2.
This particular style of references makes the article nigh-incomprehensible in edit mode. This is, of course, personal preference, but I like note tags better, with all the referencing information at the end of the article.
As far as referencing game text goes, don't. It's totally kosher to not reference things that are stated in-game. Keep copying of the game script to questions on the talk page. On the other hand, if there's any amount of interpretation involved, you need to cite somebody else, or it's WP:OR.
I still think the amount of backstory in the first section is "too much"; there is far more text dedicated to the backstory than there is to the events of FFX and FFX-2 (WP:NOT Maechen. :P).

I'm not going to touch the mythology article with a ten-foot pole, thank you. Nifboy 21:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All these matters will be resolved today. We haven't yet put the process in motion, and have been giving everyone sufficient time to comment. Thank you for your input, by the way. What you bring up -- speficially concerning ensuring that events from X or X-2 are well identified as such -- is certainly something we should make a point to maintain.

I do disagree that it's unnecessary to provide quotes from the game, however, especially seeing that certain important game quotes are often optional dialogue. That, and some editors simply forget that certain things were said and may edit verified information rather than ask about it first.

Oh, and nice one with the WP:NOT Maechen pun. XD I hadn't heard that before. It's clever. Ryu Kaze 12:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is starting to read more like a professional article, although I do hope you transferred the earlier prose to Wikibooks or Wikicities, where it could really flourish. Deckiller 12:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I did. Not sure if it was the most recent update before the change, but it should be pretty close thereabouts. I'll make sure, though. Ryu Kaze 03:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]