Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Final Fantasy XIII-2/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 21:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Final Fantasy XIII-2

[edit]

Final Fantasy XIII-2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): PresN 06:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, it's been a while but I'm back, and with a non-indie video game. Since I brought Final Fantasy XIII to FA (a year and a half ago), I thought it only right to try to do the same with Final Fantasy XIII-2 before the third game has a chance to come out. The article was given a very thorough GAN review a month ago by Mark Arsten, including a pretty in-depth look at the prose, so I'm optimistic that we shouldn't have too much trouble with what I hope will be my 10th featured article. Thanks all for reviewing! (Note: I'm currently in the Wikicup, but I fully expect to be knocked out before this FAC concludes. This article will not be submitted for the Wikicup.) --PresN 06:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Co-nomination/Support - I am one of the top four editors of the article (one of them is the community banned user G-Zay) and I helped brought FFXIII to FA and I have done extensive work on the article. I think I am very optimistic about bringing this up to FA status. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Were G-Zay's edits checked before nomination? « Ryūkotsusei » 19:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I think so. Please see User talk:G-Zay/Source problems. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he mainly wrote back before the game came out, and the entire article was rewritten for GA. --PresN 18:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Be explicit as to what "lazy environment design" Edge refers to, because earlier, they describe the environments as "entirely captivating". Also - what does GameRankings give you that Metacritic doesn't? Its inclusion is redundant. - hahnchen 20:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edge issue done. Please don't use FAC to push a change in how VG articles as a whole handle metareviews- there's a current discussion at WT:VG about it that is a more appropriate venue to build a consensus. --PresN 18:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is redundant, and I've removed it rather than argue about it, but again: FAC is not the place to try to influence whether video game articles across Wikipedia use both Metacritic and Gamerankings, please try to form a consensus at WP:VG instead. --PresN 19:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As messy and multifaceted as the discussion may be, interrupting an FAC when you already have an active discussion on the point going on right now is disruptive. Lets focus on evaluating the article based on current agreed upon criteria for evaluation. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It could probably be better to have this discussion go on in the talk page for this nomination instead. I mean if they continue it. GamerPro64 21:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - mostly all OK (appropriate fair-use, CC, sources and authors provided), but File:Final_Fantasy_XIII-2_gameplay.jpg needs work: (Done, fair-use checked).

  • Replace "n.a." with a valid brief explanation, why you believe those criteria are met (NFCC#1 and #2, see other screenshots as template).
  • A fair-use image should have a size of max. 100,000 pixels ("minimal usage"). Needs reduction and deletion of the larger version. GermanJoe (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 100,000 is a guideline. File:Final Fantasy XIII-2 gameplay.jpg is sufficiently low resolution, it is over 6 times smaller than its native size in the game. - hahnchen 18:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is a guideline - which editors usually should follow. Is there a good reason, why the image needs to be higher resolution to serve its purpose? The underlying fair-use policy requires editors to use non-free images as minimal as possible, regarding both quantity and quality. GermanJoe (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would argue that it is not high resolution enough. It looks blurry on my iphone5, so making it blurrier would make it dip below an acceptably low level of quality. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • 100,000 is an arbitrary figure which ignores all context, what matters is whether this screenshot is low resolution, which it is. It's not even close to SDTV quality, let alone HDTV. The image is busy, and low on contrast - "Decreasing the resolution even further would render the graphical details indiscernible." - as covered in the rationale. - hahnchen 19:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that, PresN. I agree with the above comments, if the lower res image is not usable for the stated purpose. I did a quick test and especially texts and smaller elements seem to be the biggest problem, but please double-check. GermanJoe (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, to get it below 100000px, it had to be shrunk from 500x282 to 420x237, and it really does become just unintelligible at that size- the text is unreadable and the game area (which is a mess at the best of times) starts to look like a blur of color if you have anything less than perfect vision. I think it's going to have to stay as it is- it's already diminished from 1080p, and the graphics were never designed to be shrunk that far. --PresN 15:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "The Xbox 360 version only reached 48th, primarily because there were few Xbox 360 customers in Japan." That might be true, but it appears the source referenced here speculates it was due to lack of demand from the female audience (which isn't mentioned in the wikipedia article...), and doesn't mention the supposed low sales of xboxes in Japan. Ryan Norton 14:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I guess what I should say is that the part mentioned was the first source I took a look at. I don't have time at the moment but you might want to do a quick spot check if you aren't 100% sure of some sources. Ryan Norton 02:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Cirt

(having stumbled here from my FAC)

Please reply below these comments, and not interspersed in them, thanks!

  1. Someone should really take on Final Fantasy (video game) as a quality improvement project and improve it up to WP:FA. It's the first one in the series, after all. :P
  2. Gameplay - seems odd for this sect to have one subsection. Could the initial info that appears in this sect before Combat system be given its own sub-subsection title? Maybe something like Character control or something like that?
  3. Gameplay - two-sentence-long-paragraph at end of this top part of this sect. Could this either be expanded upon, or merged into another paragraph, above?
  4. Combat system - might this image File:Final Fantasy XIII-2 gameplay.jpg look a little better on display for the reader, if it were aligned to the right of the text, instead of the left?
  5. Plot, subsect, Setting - okay I started reading this and have no idea what that sentence is talking about. More background info is needed before diving right into this, will explain more in the next point.
  6. I'd strongly suggest this article be informative for the average reader who might not have played every single prior game. Much like an episode of The Simpsons should describe what seems obvious to fans of the show. Perhaps solve this with a Background sect, with basic basic basic info assuming someone has never heard of Final Fantasy the genre, before? Maybe start with a sentence like: "Final Fantasy is a video game series that ..." ?
  7. Story - two-sentence-long-paragraph at the end of this sect. Could this either be expanded upon, or merged into another paragraph, above?
  8. Reception - maybe break this into 2 sub subsects, with titles, Sales and Reviews, or something like that? Any info on marketing? Then maybe expand the Sales sect, and add that marketing and release info, there?
  9. References - ambiguous date formatting system uses just numbers. Could you please go through and replace this with format with words, for example instead of "2012-01-28", use "28 January 2012", and also for the accessdates?
  10. See also - perhaps you could add a See also sect, with a few links and some relevant Portals? Thanks very much for this most informative and interesting quality improvement project, — Cirt (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    1. It's on the list, it's just a lot harder to find sources for a 25-year-old game than it is for a 1-year-old game.
    2. Done
    3. Merged
    4. Moved to right; there used to not be enough text to block if from getting pushed by the infobox
    5. Answered in next point
    6. Alright, tried to give a bit more backstory. None of the Final Fantasy numbered games have anything to do with each other plotwise, but I agree that the setting section just launched into 13-2 without adequately explaining what happened in 13.
    7. Merged
      1. I disagree with this. This is extra material that happens after the credits (with all requirements full-filled of course) and doesn't need merged. --JDC808 ♫ 06:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    8. Sub-section'd; I don't have any marketing information- they didn't push as hard with this, as a sequel, as they did with FF13 itself.
    9. I'd really rather not, if possible. WP:DATEFORMAT says that it's fine (it's year-month-day, btw, not ambiguous), I've used it for 6 FAs and dozens of GAs and FLs, and it ensures that they're all consistent, rather than the mix of 28 January and January 28 you get usually. It's a lot of work for no gain to change them all, in my opinion.
    10. I added a section with the "Final Fantasy" book; any suggestions as to links that are not already included in the article proper?
Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 19:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by JDC808
  1. I've been going through and doing some copy-editing. Under "Combat system", I moved this sentence, "The Paradigm system allows the player to program six different roles, which the characters can assume to perform certain formations in battle in response to specific conditions." to the beginning of the last paragraph, because it made more sense for it to be there.
  2. Something I noticed was missing, the Crystarium system. There should be some mention of that.
  3. There also isn't much mention of the magic system, other than "when the enemy is struck by attacks or spells." and under plot, there's a couple of mentions of magical abilities.
  4. Made a new section in Development for Downloadable content. You can change this if you disagree.
  5. I'm not saying remove these, but I personally don't see the point of having pictures of the director or composer when their respective article's can do that. When I'm reading an article about a game, I don't care what the people who made this look like, and if I happen to want to know, I'll look at their article and if there happens to not be one there, I'll Google search it. It's not something I feel is important for a game article. Screenshots, early artwork, early development shots are what we really want to see. You have one screenshot, which is good.

These are my only concerns. --JDC808 ♫ 06:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Yep, looks better. Thanks.
    2. I've put in info and a reference about the Crystarium section. It's the best I could find. If someone has an improved reference, or more references, they are more than welcome to add to it.
    3. Added some and put it in a place it seemed to fit. You can have a look at it if you like, just to make sure it flows well enough. I think it does, but a second opinion is always needed.
    4. I've had a look at it, it seems alright. DLC of that gravity usually does merit
    5. I don't see that it matters one way or the other whether the pictures are there or not. Admittedly, maybe having the composer's picture there is a little necessary, but the picture of Toriyama is from when XIII-2 was beginning production, it has relevance in terms of the article, as far as I can see it. As to concept art, I don't think there's much available, and Final Fantasy XIII manages without it.
Thanks for the look-over. This article's getting there. I know it. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As per Crystarium and magic, looks good, made a very minor copy-edit. As to the pictures, as I said, you don't have to remove them, I just don't see what relevance those particular ones add. --JDC808 ♫ 22:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see no other issues. Great work. --JDC808 ♫ 22:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Final_Fantasy_XIII-2/archive1&oldid=1138460762"