Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wild Arms (video game)/1

Wild Arms (video game)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has numerous uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yet another driveby nomination with absolutely no attempt to fix the situation yourself, which would be easily doable since most of the article is still sourced. Seriously, stop with the frivolous delisting as it's tatamount to disruptive. Focus on fixing it first, and attempt to delist if the article is unfixable without a major rewrite of all content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He posted about it a month ago—Talk:Wild Arms (video game)#GA concerns—and apparently no one is maintaining the article. Degradation in the article's quality isn't the nominator's burden to correct. This is easily a multi-hour project to bring the article back up to quality. czar 13:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This looks very easily fixable. The plot summary is a little long by 2024 standards, but the uncited paragraphs are few and mostly stuff like "unneed details about Alter Code F that can easily be cut". Please don't close this without pinging me, I'll take a look. SnowFire (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Status update: Okay, Czar was right, I was wrong, this was not "easily fixable" and did indeed require multiple hours. I had assumed the article was in better shape and the only complaint was that there were some unreferenced paragraphs about Alter Code F which were unnecessary because there already was a separate ACF article. Turns out that there wasn't a separate ACF article (well, there was in the past, but it was merged back) and some of the writing was... not real great. I've expanded and referenced a full section on Alter Code: F (plenty of reviews for it, it easily merits that). I couldn't find very much on Development at all (1996 was before everything was thrown on the Internet, and whatever Wild Arms fansites of the old times existed seems to have gone down or been lost by Google), but I found one interview with Kaneko which is something. (I also asked in the Armed Fantasia Discord channel... crickets so far, but we'll see. If they don't know of anything, I don't think it's anything easy to find.) I've added in some later, PSN downloadable on PS4/PS5 era reviews.
Areas that remain for improvement: I chopped down the plot length, although it's still over the current recommended max (but I also think that going a little over it is fine as said max is on the too-low side). Since it was largely dead-tree guidebooks in 1996 that don't appear to be on the net (seriously, this alleged BradyGames guide barely appears to exist, one seller wanted 200 bucks for it), I'm not spending money on these old guides. I'll AGF that they largely back up game details that they were used for before, somewhere, as well as some of my minor alterations. But ideally someone would check the Brady / Prima / etc. guides and maybe add page numbers. I did not go over the old PSX Reception section super closely, but did check some of the reviews and formatted the cites better, but it does have a somewhat "hypey" tone in parts that I'm not 100% certain is merited. Also, Japanese reception is nearly entirely missing, with both the WA1 & WAACF sections largely talking about the English localizations. But digging up JP reviews would be a lot of work.
The article is not at a level where I, personally, would nominate it as a GA fresh to my own personal standards. But I also think that the actual Wikipedia GA standard as written is pretty attainable and not as strict as what most people nominate new stuff for, and think that the article may be back up to that fairly achievable level. @Z1720, Zxcvbnm, and Czar: What do you think? Are we good to keep it, or think it still needs more work? SnowFire (talk) 07:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I said it was fast to fix, I didn't necessarily mean adding a full section worth of content about Alter Code F. Alter Code F definitely needed work, but that could have technically been done in a separate draft at some other time as it merits its own article if sufficiently expanded. What it seems like to me is that it was merged for being unfinished rather than non-notable. Given that you have improved it so much, it should probably be split and turned into an article again.

Right now I think the article not just meets GA criteria but surpasses them handily, it's probably A class right now. Its main weakness is, as you said, the lack of development info but that will be tough to find given how old and obscure-ish the game is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My concerns have resolved, and I have no further concerns. If no further information about development can be found, then it cannot be added to the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.