Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask/archive1

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 User:Marskell 14:34, 11 July 2008 [1].

The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask

Review commentary

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, Wikipedia:WikiProject Nintendo, Wikipedia:WikiProject The Legend of Zelda series and User:Cuivienen notified

I don't think this passes 1c with no refs in the Gameplay section and a total of two in the Plot section. The Reception section also looks a bit sort. Buc (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gameplay section could use some more sources, but most of it is based on the game itself and its manual. Some video game articles include several footnotes to the game's manual, but I don't believe that to be necessary. The reception section could use some expansion but shows the general trend of criticism well enough. In conclusion, some things could be improved, but I think the article still meets FA-standards. It certainly meets all video games guidelines. User:Krator (t c) 22:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Make the manual the ref then. Buc (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It also has excessive use of fair use images per WP:NFCC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, shoot. I did a lot of work on this article during its FAC, enough that I sort of consider it one of "my" FAs even though I wasn't the nominator. (I don't assume to own it, of course.) I know it needs work—I'm willing to put in the effort to keep this featured, but I'm going to be stretched thin between this and the FAC for another Zelda game that's really putting me through the wringer at the moment. Pagra shtak 00:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please complete the nomination by following the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to notify significant contributors and relevant WikiProjects, and post the notifications back to the top of this FAR. Perhaps the following users: User:Axem Titanium seems to have a significant number of recent edits. (I see that User:Pagrashtak has been notified.) Thanks!--RegentsPark (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pagrashtak; give me a yell (on my talk) if you need any specific help with the article. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Image:MajorasMaskMiakuPractice.jpg and Image:zora.JPG seem completely unnecessary in the article and the fair use rationales do nothing to convince me otherwise. Jay32183 (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You should have seen it before I removed five images. What do you think of Image:Zora.JPG now? Pagra shtak 07:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a much better rationale. Good enough for me not to argue with the inclusion of the image. Jay32183 (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see the ref link to archive.org is a duffer. Anyone have an alternative? --Oscarthecat (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see an image featuring Link w/o a mask on. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Termina resembles an ancient city-state - says who? hbdragon88 (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No idea; did some searching and got nothing. Removed that and reworded around it. —Giggy 08:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note; no more {{fact}}; I removed both unsourced statements after doing some searching and not finding anything. The old version is here (do a Ctrl+F for "citation needed") if anyone wants to try searching some more. —Giggy 11:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) and images (3). Marskell (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The image issue is settled I think, five images at least were removed and rationales added. More references are still needed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per lack of citations. Kariteh (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Kariteh (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think the sparse inline citations is a big deal here - the stuff that needs inlined citations has them. --- RockMFR 02:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything needs citation. Buc (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Eh? WP:WIAFA links to WP:V, and V says (in a nutshell) Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. This article meets that standard. —Giggy 07:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think some of the Plot section is "likely to be challenged". Buc (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the game content can be sourced to the game itself, the rest is generally well referenced. There are currently three images, all justified (box art, gameplay screenshot, image displaying critical commentary). —Giggy 14:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unless someone can demonstrate what information in the plot section needs citations. I see nothing that overtly would meet the criteria of likely to be challenged. The relevant statements/sections that require citations have them. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep—I've always preferred textual references as a way to enhance the plot summaries, but it's definitely not at the point where it's policy. Some of the setting info could probably be trimmed with another copy-edit (which the article needs). — Deckill er 03:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- -=Goes to fetch the script=-. — Deckill er 07:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I had the manual at one point...but I can't find it. For now, I'll use that Hyrule guide. They ain't exceptional claims, so the sources don't have to be exceptional for now. Just proof that it's not speculation. — Deckill er 07:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As of this revision, I don't see any issues with the article. While there are two phrases lacking citation, neither contribute much, if anything, to the article and should perhaps be discussed on the article's talk page instead of here. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—it's getting there. — Deckill er 15:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like the all fact tags have been sourced or removed now. If anyone feels something else needs to be sourced, please let me know. Deckiller—I have the manual, if there's something in particular you wanted to source from it. Pagra shtak 15:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mostly just the setting information/character descriptions. — Deckill er 20:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prose is still a tad shaky in areas (I'll admit to that), but I believe it's passable. Nothing without a source is really likely to be challenged; I guess there's a new school of thought that wants to move away from excessive referencing? — Deckill er 22:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If anything the Settings and Chracters sections might need more referencing, if only for the fact that it draws parallels between characters that appeared in the Ocarina of Time. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 23:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that could qualify as original research. — Deckill er 02:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
basically, yeah, since it would come from player observation. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we're good to go here. Nice work everyone. Marskell (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.