Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dragon Warrior/archive1

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 not promoted by Nikkimaria 02:41, 24 July 2011 [1].

Dragon Warrior

Nominator(s): 陣内 _Jinnai and MuZemike 20:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After a good push of this NES classic to GA by Jinnai, it came up for an A-Class assessment; while I initially reviewed it, it basically turned into a collaboration in which I assisted with almost 20KB (12KB more prose) more material added post-GA, as well as improvement in much of the material. Jinnai and I both feel that this is ready to make a run for FAC; it does not look like there has been anything else which was left out.

Background on the article: Dragon Warrior (originally Dragon Quest in Japan) is an RPG video game that was released for the NES/Famicom and was the first game in the Dragon Quest franchise. The game was revolutionary for its time as it was one of the first successful RPG video games to hit video game consoles (previous RPGs such as Wizardry or Ultima were on home computers).

Note: Having participated in the improvement of the article post-GA, I consider this a WikiCup nomination. –MuZemike 20:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media Review Without being asked to do so, I performed a media review of this earlier when MuZemike mentioned that he wanted to take it to FAC. (Said service is open to anyone that asks, and I will do one while you wait if I'm asked while I'm on IRC). It's all good, except that the fourth image needs a resize. I tried, multiple times, to do so, but each time I did I made the image size smaller but the file size (#KB) larger. I'm tempted to just say 'screw it' and resize it as a .jpg, so don't be surprised if that happens. As for the third image, comparing the Japanese and American sprites, in my opinion it does qualify for use under the NFCC. I realize it might be borderline, but I feel it does add to the reader understanding of the article, ect. and meets the other requirements.
- TLDR It's good. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – sorry, it's full of clumsy prose and errors. This for example, in the Lead, "Several anime and manga were later created centering around trilogy. These titles." What on earth dose this mean? And if "which" is used it should be preceded by a preposition, prepositional phrase or a comma. There are about twenty instances – try "that" instead. This "previous unreleased" should use the adverb. The tense is wrong here, "Dragon Warrior would again be re-released for the Game Boy Color along with Dragon Warrior II on September 23, 1999 in Japan and September 27, 2000 in North America". This sentence is back-to-front "Numerous live concerts have performed music from the game". The article needs a radical copy edit from top to bottom. These are just examples, this nomination is premature. Graham Colm (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source work needed - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of minor issues with footnote placement: make sure that there's a space after the footnote, and generally it's good practice to put consecutive citations in numerical order (ie. [1][2][3] instead of [3][1][2])

Fixed. –MuZemike 02:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure ranges use endashes, not hyphens

Fixed. –MuZemike 02:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is TOSE?

TOSE is the company who developed Dragon Warrior I & II for the Game Boy Color. I have provided a wikilink there to avoid confusion. –MuZemike 02:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations

Hopefully I went through them all and provided them when applicable. –MuZemike 02:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FN 19, 24: publisher? Date?

Everything filled out on both. –MuZemike 02:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are FNs 21 and 22 (and similar) citing the same source? If so, should be formatted similarly; if not, what is the other source?

They were both from the Official Strategy Guide, which I filled both out appropriately. –MuZemike 02:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FN 27: page(s)?

It was pages 5-6 of the Instruction Booklet, which was a duplicate of FN 3, which I combined. –MuZemike 02:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FN 31: publisher?

GameSpot, which is now filled out. –MuZemike 02:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This link goes directly to the home page, not an article - was that deliberate?

References were either replaced by another source or outright removed. See below. –MuZemike 02:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be consistent in how you notate volume numbers

Got it. Some were using the "volume" paramater, which bolded them; I switched all of them to the more appropriate "issue" parameter so that none of them are bolded. –MuZemike 02:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

check for consistent use of italicization

I swept through and hopefully got them all. –MuZemike 02:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FN 56: date?

Got it; missed that one. –MuZemike 02:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FN 76: publisher?

Got it (RPGfan). –MuZemike 02:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This? This? This? This?
I don't speak Japanese, so for my benefit can you explain who owns/writes this site, and what his/her sources and qualifications are?

Geimin.net is a sales site that generates its information from Media Create, a Japanese company who specializes in electronic sales ([2]). –MuZemike 02:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FN 110: date? Also, what kind of source is this?

I filled that in; it's a strategy guide that was released with Dragon Warrior II, which was published in 1990. –MuZemike 02:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general, reference formatting should be more consistent. For example, compare FNs 40 and 41. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes made to most of the issues above at [3] and [4]. It is getting late here, so I will have to hold until tomorrow to address the questionable RSes you mentioned above, with the exception of GameFAQs because I have removed all of those sources and replaced with more reliable sources. –MuZemike 02:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – on prose. Not just because it rhymes, but due to an abundance of weird sentences throughout the article, some of which were pointed out by Graham Colm above. A particularly funny one is "While they agreed the music is more flat than they prefer": so they still like flat music, just not that flat? ;) Also noticed obvious spelling mistakes, such as "cartidge" instead of "cartridge", "descendent" instead of "descendant", "proposerity" instead of "prosperity". Consulting a copy editor would help, I think, but I am not sure you will be done in time for the current nomination. Better to wait and polish it some more. :) Prime Blue (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination per the opposes. I'll get the prose fixed and re-nominate at a later time. –MuZemike 02:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, apologies for wasting the reviewers' time here. –MuZemike 02:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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