Talk:Fire Emblem: Mystery of the Emblem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Fire Emblem: Mystery of the Emblem has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic star Fire Emblem: Mystery of the Emblem is part of the Main Fire Emblem series series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 10, 2016 Good article nominee Listed
January 25, 2017 Good article reassessment Kept
June 5, 2017 Good topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Video games (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Nintendo task force.

Moby Games[edit]

I deleted the link to Moby Games since the site in question was a retailer and I find this highly inappropriate to Wikipedia. The link provided only a short synopsis and did nothing for the article's verifiability. Drumpler 04:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No PLOT...[edit]

PLOT tittle is there but no info, —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

There are three sub-headings for the plot: setting, characters and story. Aether7 (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


Here are some sources for future editors: Retroreview by RPGamer staff of the SNES version of the game; Staff review of the remake, again by RPGamer; Translation of remake's Famitsu review, from 1UP and archived on WebCite; Import review by Cubed3 of the DS remake; Japanese Iwata Asks concerning the DS remake and containing development information on the original, archived on WebCite; Partial transcript of Famitsu's review of the SNES original, along with correct issue in which it was published. A different link that leads to other sources is the game's Japanese Wikipedia page, has some cited information which can be used and read through Google Translate, but don't rely solely on it. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fire Emblem: Mystery of the Emblem/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gamingforfun365 (talk · contribs) 21:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

My first time reviewing a GAN, I shall take a look at this article for any room for improvements, write down my comments here along the way, and then tell you when I have finished reviewing the article. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Some thoughts that I have while reviewing the article...

  • The lead section states that the game's development started in 1992, something not said in the body of the article.
  • Could there be a brief mention of what was generally praised and perhaps what was generally criticized in the lead section?
  • (optional) The images should use the |alt= parameter per WP:ALT.
  • Note that while this should be done, it is not part of the GA criteria--IDVtalk 22:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I find the original Japanese titles (such as BS ファイアーエムブレム アカネイア戦記 and 第1話・パレス陥落) rather distracting. Per WP:JFN, they should all go under the currently nonexistent "Notes" section.
  • I want to believe that RocketBaby is a reliable source, but I have never heard of that website. I suggest that, unless the source really is reliable, a better source be used.
  • Same thing for RacketBoy; I have not heard of that website either.
  • Same thing for; I have not heard of that website either.
  • The RocketBaby ref is an interview, which is fine as it's considered a self-published source about the subject as long as it's not used to make any extraordinary claims. Here it's just verifying who worked on the game. Andriasang is listed on the WPVG list of reliable sources, and was written by an experienced VG journalist who has previously worked for IGN. I don't know anything about RacketBoy.--IDVtalk 23:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Sources 12 and 37 (RocketBaby) are one same source.
  • " defeat the will driving the invasion, the evil priest Gharnef: his allies include..." This seems grammatically incorrect. It should be "to defeat the will driving the invasion, the evil priest Gharnef. Gharnef's allies include..."
  • "Finding out from Boah that a depressed Hardin was turned evil with the Darksphere by Gharnef in the form of a merchant and only the Lightsphere can save him." This is an incomplete sentence.
  • "Sadly, Marth isn't able to... > Marth is not able to...
  • "...using the Starlight magic, Gharnef is defeated..." It essentially states that Gharnef defeated himself by using the Starlight magic.
  • "...Marth, the main protagonist of Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light, and his army..." This can either be interpreted as either "Marth, his army, and the main protagonist of Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light, and his army..." or "Marth's army and Marth himself, the main protagonist of Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light".
  • "Critical hits do triple..." > "Critical hits triple..."
  • "...experience points, which raised a unit's experience level..." Did you mean to write down "...experience points, which raise a unit's experience level..."?
  • (optional) "...the team were able to..." I think that this article uses American English, so it may need to be changed into "...the team was able to...".
  • I am not sure about the reliability of Inside Games. I have a feeling that it is reliable, but I am not sure. Can you confirm the reliability?

Those are all of the issues that I have with the article. As such, I am putting this article for changes to take effect within 7 days. On hold Gamingforfun365 (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Comment: How would you rate my performance? (And I prefer honesty over politeness.) Gamingforfun365 (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
@Gamingforfun365: I've sorted out all the grammatical errors you found (most of them were inherited from the plot synopsis I carried over from the pre-rewrite version). As to RocketBoy, that's the only source I found, and since it wasn't raising any red flags I didn't think it was wrong to use it when sourcing things in this article (especially as it's for a barely-talked about Satellaview title). Inside Games is also a reliable Japanese source; I've used it before for both news and interviews, and since New Mystery is a Japanese exclusive with limited coverage, its use is reasonable (it has been accepted in previous GAs I've nominated).
Oh, and as to an honest opinion on your GA review style... You've picked out all those points quite well as any other reviewer would. As to your delivery, it's serviceable but a little haphazard, and those comments would usually go into their own subsection dubbed "review" or something, or into a larger table. It makes reading each of the points easier for nominators. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Very good. I will try to make sorting easier in the future; that is, if I ever will review a GAN again. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Well ddne. I am happy to  Pass this article for the GA-status. Now, I do admit, however, that I could have checked the in-English sources a little more than what I had just to see whether Wikipedia has interpreted the sources correctly, but I held these sources (and their URLs) to be trustworthy, so I do not think that it would be a huge problem. In fact, should I check the in-English sources? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
@Gamingforfun365: You can if you want, but I was careful about citing information that it was as accurate as possible without lifting direct quotes or directly paraphrasing. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
All right. I will just go ahead and pass the article. Well done!