Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Final Fantasy VIII/archive1

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

The article was kept by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:45, 18 January 2010 [1].

Final Fantasy VIII

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Toolbox
Notified: Deckiller, Hibana, Axem Titanium, WikiProject Video games, WikiProject Square Enix

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article fails 1(b) - it fails to mention any Development or Reception content regarding the Windows version release. Also the Merchandise section has only one Reference, the rest of the three paragraphed section is unsourced. — Blue。 01:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There's a ref in the lead, which should be removed as the content's already in the body of the article. There are also a few unreliable sources: FLAREgamer, ffshrine.org, members.tripod.org, Empire arcadiA, and fs.finalfantasytr.com. Also, RPGamer is frowned upon as a source in FAs, but I'm not gonna complain as I use RPGFan as a source myself. :P And isn't TopTenReviews unnecessary; I think GameRankings and Metacritic are sufficient. I also think the prose in the reception section is kinda confusing to read, with all the direct quotations; it seems like overkill. This is a good example on the matter. The Prince (talk) 10:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "ffshrine.org, members.tripod.org" are both used only in linking to translations, with the actual magazine issue in question already linked to. As for the rest I'm looking through them now. RPGamer however should be fine (they are referenced in a few books from a quick Google Books search, and do fall back on Crave Online as a host).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kung Fu Man has already fixed the PC Reception and citation problems, dude is fast... The merchandise section still needs refs, as noted by Blue. I don't think we need more than a sentence or two about the PC development- they just ported the game, there wasn't much "development" as it had already been created. --PresN 15:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about the following items: Fifelfoo (talk) 10:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation of corporate authors (Companies, Staff, etc.) needs to be regularised. Square isn't an editor, its a corporate author. Website staff can simply be identified as [Staff] for a news source, or the Company for an official site.
Otherwise I'm quite glad at 2c, there's a recognition that IGN is a news-service but Gamespy is simply a website.
For 1c, though, I'm rather concerned about the use of PRIMARY sources (the game itself)
Similarly at 1c, SELF published material. Square publishing about Square is not particularly reliable.
I'm kind of concerned about the quotes in the references, but I realise they're location information for a difficult medium to identify the location of a proof.
Surely there are some appreciations or critical receptions by now? Yahtzee or more academic?
also this cite needs work, the square brackets: "^ a b c "Final Fantasy VIII". Electronic Gaming Monthly]] (123): 188. January 1999."
While I want to tackle the other points you brought up, this one really stood out:
"Citation of corporate authors (Companies, Staff, etc.) needs to be regularised. Website staff can simply be identified as [Staff] for a news source."
Since *when*, exactly? More often than not you end up stuck with an article unattributed to a particular staff member, but written by the staff. Marking the end result as staff has always been previously acceptable for such items that I've seen before, since it shows the reader clearly it wasn't just a fan submitted piece of material.
This source is authored, not edited
Square Electronic Arts, ed (1999). Final Fantasy VIII North American instruction manual. Square Electronic Arts. pp. 20, 24, 36. SLUS-00892GH.
This source is correctly cited as an author
Square Co.. Final Fantasy VIII. (Square EA). PlayStation. (1999-09-09)
The IGN is slightly redundant, as its obvious from the publisher / work
IGN Staff (1999).
As for other points:
"For 1c, though, I'm rather concerned about the use of PRIMARY sources (the game itself)"
Again, since when has this been a problem for FACs for material related directly to the game? You don't need a website to reitterate what's stated in the game's text before you can cite it after all.
The use of primary sources in general is the invitation to OR and synthesis. This is a challenge to prompt a response indicating the editorial care displayed by the article editors. Fifelfoo (talk)
I'm sorry but that's not the way that works. In this case any secondary source is going to be an interpretation of the primary, which is why heavy care is emphasized by Wikipedia. That is a baffling and, well, ridiculous statement.
I don't know you, or any of the editors, who made their interpretive appreciations of final fantasy 8 in writing the article. This is why direct use of primaries are bad. There is no simple way to interpret a primary source, which is why I'm asking below for more scholarly appreciations of the source. This is the same reason why we don't accept original interpretations of poetry, plays, novels for those wikipedia articles--its original research which should be done by critics, not by a random editor. There is no veracity in your personal interpretation, or any personal interpretation, if it isn't backed up by being published in a Reliable Source. The lack of high quality scholarly reliable sources in video game review at the moment, or a concept of canonicity in video games, means you can get off lightly and rely more heavily on lower quality RS; but the interpretation of primary sources is the job of professionals and scholars publishing in reliable secondary sources, not wikipedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Surely there are some appreciations or critical receptions by now? Yahtzee or more academic?"
It's being worked on, but at some point sources more or less start repeating themselves. There's only so many times you can cite "we do/don't like this" for the same items. For the record I don't think the VG project finds Yahtzee the most reliable of sources, nor have I seen it fly in many FACs unless cited very carefully. It's like trying to cite the Nostalgia Critic: there's his actual opinion, then there's his gimmick, which might be two very different things.
True. But until we get the Journal of Humanities Video Game Studies... we get it where we can. Fifelfoo (talk)
No, we get it from reliable sources.
"Similarly at 1c, SELF published material. Square publishing about Square is not particularly reliable."
I'm not sure where you mean here. You mean for development information? If so that's perfectly acceptable for FAs: they're the guys behind the bloody thing, why *wouldn't* you cite them directly?
The same reason why I wouldn't cite a government about its own intentions and purposes; or a political party on the value of its ideology. Reluctantly, with care, where no other sources exist. Reasons to distort the actual development process include: creative differences, marketing, unexpected success, unexpected failure, minimizing problems. This is a challenge to prompt a response indicating the editorial care displayed by the article editors. Fifelfoo (talk)
Forgive me but I really can't take that article seriously. One way or another the information behind a game's development comes from the people behind it, whether it be a book by the people behind the item or an interview. You're effectively arguing that because you feel the horse's mouth might be lying, we should get the information from people citing the very same source?
Yes, that's precisely the point. Wikipedia is not a forum for the analysis of texts. Wikipedia is a tertiary work written out of secondary works.
"also this cite needs work, the square brackets: "^ a b c "Final Fantasy VIII". Electronic Gaming Monthly]] (123): 188. January 1999."
It's being worked on.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other than those, the 2c / 1c looks good. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've left responses, but in all honesty to seem to be new to the handling of the FAC process on the whole when it comes to video games (and possibly literature items). I would suggest checking FACs around the website as your notions on primary sources in this regard are well in left field.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If other articles play in traffic... Fifelfoo (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns with the article are that the article is written to an unnecessary degree from primary and self, leading necessarily due to the nature of interpretation in the humanities (see: hermeneutics) to original research and mis weighting. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Fifelfoo: there is absolutely nothing wrong with using the work itself as a source for plot summary and such. As far as I can tell, all the primary-source refs are in the Story section. Unless you can provide examples of references to primary sources for things other than in-game elements, I see nothing actionable in your concerns. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 10:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources are not inappropriate for using as reference to the game's plot. If there were scholarly articles about the plot, as I'd expect for something like Shakespeare's plays or the like, I'd expect more use of secondary sources, but this is a JRPG; one may be lucky that secondary sources even go farther than the first few hours of gameplay (in a 40+hr game). The problem with primary sources is aleved by the inclusion of quotes in the references so that one can verify the summation (not interpretation) of the work. --MASEM (t) 14:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think I've added every bit of valid reception I can...there's a lot more out there of course, but it's either just repeating what everyone else is saying, or more related to other aspects (such as an analysis of Squall, or why Quistis is boinkable. That stuff belongs in the character list anyway). Merchandising still needs some attention, and there's really not much at all for the PC version (there's one ref I need to check).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks) but it has some problems. Some phrases in the alt text generally do not add to the description of the visual aspects, and are not verifiable by a non-expert who sees only the images. These names need to be moved to the caption and/or removed as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. The problematic phrases are "North American version", "Squall, Rinoa, and Seifer" (please describe the characters briefly, rather than naming them), "the" (in "shot of the party"), "Balamb Garden", "Selphie, Squall, and Zell", "early boss called "X-ATM092"", "Zell is preparing to summon the Guardian Force Shiva to do ice damage to the enemy". That last phrase has an additional problem in that it repeats the caption; please see WP:ALT#Repetition. Eubulides (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed? I will never understand why we try to make ALT text describe the way the image looks the most while describing what is actually in the image the least. Surely this is counterproductive, given that a textual description of visual stimuli to blind people is useless. And why does it matter if it's "not verifiable by a non-expert who sees only the images"? That's why it's in the article that is trying to inform the reader/viewer of these facts, n'est pas? --PresN 23:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most visually impaired people are not completely blind; and most blind people (as well as most visually impaired people) were formerly sighted and can interpret text that contains imagery (they're impaired because of cataracts, macular degeneration, glaucoma, etc.). The point of WP:ALT#Verifiability is that alt text should describe only what you can see in the image, and shouldn't contain other details: either those other details are covered in the caption or other adjacent text (in which case repeating them in the alt text would hurt the visually impaired), or the other details are present only in the alt text (in which case the sighted wouldn't be told the details, which would hurt the sighted). Anyway, thanks for improving the alt text. Eubulides (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, comprehensiveness, quality of citations. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 22:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Seems like the only thing that is really left to do is that Merchandise section- PC reception has been added and the weaker sources replaced. Fifelfoo disagrees with the use of quotations as refs in the plot section, but he's the only one; they are commonly used in VG FAs. --PresN 17:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I went and fixed up the merchandise section. I think everything listed above has been fixed, so-
Keep. --PresN 15:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. — Blue。 16:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No worries, Cirt (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2010 (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_review/Final_Fantasy_VIII/archive1&oldid=1089082625"