...Um, well, me and a couple other chaps would like to get this to FA-class. Let the nitpicking suggestions begin! :) David Fuchs(talk) 22:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
My main objections to the article at the moment are that the Story and Djinnn subsections should be trimmed down a bit. And someone brought to my attention that FFX's story subseciton is just as long, so I say that too should be trimmed down. WP:NOT#GUIDE, WP:NOT#INFO, WP:CVG/GL#Scope_of_information and WP:WIAGA should pretty much cover all my bases I think. Ong elvin 05:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I should be using WP:WIAFA(4) instead of WP:WIAGA(3b), but they're pretty much teh same thing - don't go into unnecessary detail. And of course the lower standard article still needs to do that, so if Golden Sun is going to be a Feature, it needs to stick to that criteria. Ong elvin 05:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Comments - First off, I'd like to say that this is not a bad article. I rather enjoyed reading it and it does a thorough job of explaining the game mechanics. But, I feel that I have to agree with Ong, it should be condensed some, specifically the "Gameplay" and "Plot" sections. I get the feeling that the editors were really trying to explain everything in the game to make it as informative as possible, which is not a bad idea. But I think too much is explained and some of it becomes unnecessary, which takes some of the spot light away from the "Development" and "Reception" sections. All in all, it's definitely shaping up to be FA, keep at it guys. Some other thoughts that I think could help are:
The "Psynergy" section could be condensed into 6-9 shorter sentences, and maybe integrated into the rest of the "Gameplay" section.
Likewise with the second paragraph of the "Battle" section and the last two paragraphs of the "Djinn system" section. Both can be condensed while still being just as informative.
The plot section could also be condensed down by at least two paragraphs.
There are a lot statements in parenthesis. Some of the statements go into unnecessary detail and should remove. Others provide good extra info and should be integrated into the prose.
There are a lot of citations from the game and instruction booklet, I think finding more citations from other sources would improve the quality as well. My two cents. (Guyinblack25talk 04:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC))
The plot and gameplay have been trimmed. David Fuchs(talk) 20:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Nice job on the plot section, that's much better. I still feel that the gameplay section can be shorter though. Some phrases could probably be removed without the overall info being effected. Re-reading the article, some wording and phrases popped out at me that I think would fall under Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. It's definitely getting closer to FA. Keep up the good work guys. Guyinblack25talk 21:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC))
I've removed the weasel words, thanks for noting them. As for the gameplay, it's down to eight paragraphs, from thirteen just a week ago. David Fuchs(talk) 22:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The length is much better now and the article is shaping up nicely. But I still think the article needs some more sources other than the game and its instruction manual. My two cents. (Guyinblack25talk 14:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC))
May I ask why? We want reliable sources, and the instruction manual is the best example of that. I've found, even on mainstream gaming sites, that they will consistently get details wrong, and for that reason I usually try not to rely on them. David Fuchs(talk) 16:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
You're right, the manual is a great source, I often use it myself. I just think that articles should a have variety of sources. And even though some gaming sites sometimes have incorrect info, they are still regarded as reliable sources. Even the New York Times makes mistakes, but it still has a good reputation. Now, IGN or GameSpot are certainly not the New York Times, but they've established themselves as a fairly reliable gaming site. Surely there are at least a few gaming sites or at least some writers on the sites that you feel comfortable citing. That aside, if an article is going for FA, I've always felt that it needs a sufficient amount of citation and sources to help establish credibility. (Guyinblack25talk 01:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC))
The additional sources are a step in the right direction. And I hate sounding like a broken record, but I still feel it needs more citation. After doing a count of the sources, the break down is 20/51 in game citations, 15/51 game manual citations, and 16/51 3rd party sources. The article is well written, and I'm sure it's factually accurate, I doubt it'd be brought to FAC if it wasn't, but without enough citation from outside sources, the article lacks the creditability needed for FA. This has the potential for FA, and I'd hate to see it not make it over a technicality like this. But those are the guidelines of Wikipedia. Once it gets more 3rd party sources I'll definitely support it. (Guyinblack25talk 14:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC))
Regardless of the source, I will argue against more than around two references per paragraph in general. I'm not objecting to citing more than two per paragraph, just that in the peer-reviewed essays I've read, that's around the level of citation used. For the story in particular, it's a given the game itself and the manual are references, although I understand as I've said the need to cite to avoid some person coming in and saying "no this is not how it happened." Ong elvin 09:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment Too much fair-use images. Some can probably be removed. Also, a translation of the Japanese title should be given in the lead. Kariteh 17:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Translation added and fair-use images cut down. David Fuchs(talk) 20:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Citation Policy. I think it's not necessary to include all the references in the plot, and some other sections. The citations, really, are only wanted when you make a point that might be argued. I don't think anyone who has played the game will argue that Mt. Aleph becomes a volcano, or that Jenna and Kraden are taken hostage. We know that Mia and Ivan join the party at some point, only a fool who has not played the game would argue that point. I estimate maybe 20-30 of those 50 links could be removed under this rationale; and this would apply to any other popular game as well of course. ;) Ong elvin 03:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
While you're probably right, I'm just hoping that removing those doesn't end up making this article seem too "small" to qualify for Featured Article status when comparing to gigantic VG Features like Final Fantasy X. :) Erik Jensen(Appreciate or Laugh At) 05:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Well look at it like this then. The FFX wiki has 15 citations in about two pages. Golden Sun has 15 citations in one page. If you really want to compare this to FFX. Oh, and how on the article's talk page, y'know how I said the Golden Sun story section could be shortened to 500 words with the only necessary/important information intact? That's just been done. ;) (500 words is roughly 1 A4 page of 12pt text.) Ong elvin 12:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, regarding the "too small" to qualify, one of the criteria for FA status is that the article does not go into minutiae. So I'd say FFX should lose its FA status on that point, really. I consider the Halo wiki a better example of a feature article, although it does irk me still that they have over 70 references in that article. Ong elvin 14:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I will add that if you have to choose between too many or too little citing of references, err towards too many. They can easily be removed later. (Just highlight and delete, as opposed to typing it out.) Ong elvin 02:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment Two issues in particular concern me. One, the prose of the Gameplay section. Two, the extensive use of the game itself and its manual in as a source in the first few paragraphs.
1. The prose of the Gameplay section uses a lot of gaming jargon. For example (suggestions in parentheses): to "equip" (use); "RPGs" (first time it is used in a section, write "role playing games (RPGs)"); CPU (computer?); buffing (link intact, but write "enhancement" or so); etc. Furthermore, some necessary jargon could be explained more by extensive wikilinking: dungeon to dungeon crawl, spell, experience points, hit points, etc. Please check the whole section for this kind of language.
2. Before the development section, only one source cited is independent of the subject. While citing the manual and the game itself is generally allowed, try to look up some of the information in third-party sources (even the existing ones), and add footnotes to them. User:Krator (tc) 17:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've added in the wikilinks like you've asked. I'll take med another day before I can get down to adding other sources, I'll leave a note when I'm done. David Fuchs(talk) 23:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've added more 3rd-party sources to the initial gameplay. David Fuchs(talk) 22:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Support previous concerns addressed. User:Krator (tc) 20:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Support as previous concerns have been addressed. Also with respect to WP:WIAFA, I think it meets all the criteria. I find the prose to be engaging, and of a professional standard; exactly the sort of language I'd expect from a printed Encyclopaedia. (Some minor faults of course, but nevertheless very good.) It's comprehensive, maintains WP:NPOV, and I think the current revision should be quite stable. The lead makes an excellent blurb; in two paragraphs I know what the genre of the game is, what the plot is about, and that it has a Djinn system which is notable in the RPG genre. The table of contents makes sense and has a number of entries, but it amazingly doesn't have so many points to be overwhelming to the non-player. Citation is consistent, and the important information is summarised in six pages, plus three more for references and links. Not too many images to overcrowd the page presentation. I like it. :) Ong elvin 00:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I do like it, but more so because it's concise and the prose is excellent and in the form. It's got nothing to do with the content itself other than it being concise, so WP:ILIKEIT doesn't apply to me here. (In French accent) Now take back your comment, or I shall taunt you again! (Hmm... where'd my first taunt go?) :P Ong elvin 03:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment: The development section is far too small. We almost have no information on how it was developed. This is my biggest problem. It needs to be comprehensive, and the article is far from that without a good development section. The second problem is there is no music section - there were albums released, there is a composer, and the music can be described. --Teggles 05:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
There were albums released? Cool! I never knew that. And assuming there's citable sources out there for music-related Golden Sun info other than "Motoi Sakuraba made it", a music section and expansion of the development section would alleviate my concern that the article's not quite big enough for an FA. ^_^ I think, though I could be wrong, that it's possible we might not be able to take care of the Development section issue because information that could have gone into there may not have ever been published or posted on the Internet or in a book. What's currently in the development section came from my investigating several sites a long while back, and they had only those items as scant few available details. But if there's an established site where you can find developmental history for any video game, I'd love to see it. :) Erik Jensen(Appreciate or Laugh At) 06:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This game's development and music are key aspects. These key aspects are not covered. The article does not meet WP:WIAFA without this (criteria 1b). If there is no information available to fulfill this, it does not mean the article can become a Featured Article. That being said, I am confident that there is material out there. It'll just require some good research. --Teggles 09:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
You're right, I researched it earlier but forgot to bring it up. I guess I was misled. --Teggles 12:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I hope the material's out there and can be found out through research. Though, looking at the Final Fantasy X FA, its development section doesn't seem much larger than what we currently have here, so we might not need a huge amount more to make the section satisfactory. Erik Jensen(Appreciate or Laugh At) 17:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess forget the audio and just expand development. When I was searching, I came across a Golden Sun as a band- I guess that's what confused you. David Fuchs(talk) 22:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Support witheld until this is done - "The story continues in Golden Sun: The Lost Age." - This is a stubby sentence which should be part of a paragraph, not sitting by itself at the end of the plot section. As said above, if there is any more information on devs out there, it should be aded. Also as noted by Teggles, it needs a music section, as this game was notable for its music. Finally, a box summarising review scores (a la. Age of Mythology#Reception) would be helpful in the reception section. When all this is done, I support. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 11:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC) - SupportDihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 01:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment Nobody knows how many millions of copies this game sold? hbdragon88 22:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Apparently not... I've searched for that little statistic for a while and have a hard time finding it. I don't suppose there's an established statistics site that lists all video games and their sales? Erik Jensen(Appreciate or Laugh At) 03:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
(headdesk) Oh wait, that information was added in the article's intro, coming from the site VG Chartz. I was looking for it in the Reception section, which is why I didn't catch it earlier... Should that statistic also be added to the Reception section, then? Erik Jensen(Appreciate or Laugh At) 04:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
To some people, at least. WP:CVG still hasn't said that VGChartz is bad, but many disagree with using it. Considering it's the easiest way to find sales figures... David Fuchs(talk) 11:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.