User:Kariteh brought this article up to standard but it didn't pass for some reason. Regardless, it meets all the criteria, is well written, comprehensive, and deserving of the FA star. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. "Critical reception" is not comprehensive at all. Also, the lead mentions "The series is mostly known for its musical score", but the section on music doesn't mention this.-Wafulz (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Will fill up the reception section soon, and rephrased the music statement and added some opinions on the music to the reception section. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, reception section much fuller, has some sales figures, and added a lot more music reception. Let me know if this satisfies, or what else you think it needs. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice work.-Wafulz (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
According to the external link checker, the link named "Sword of Mana – in shops tomorrow" is broken.
"The action-based battle system is notable, since most other console role-playing games instead use the traditional turn-based style." Needs rewording to flow better and to convey the info more clearly. Deviating from the trend doesn't necessarily warrant the term "notable". Also, do you mean that other games didn't use this system at the release of the first game, or is this related to the current gaming traditions? If it's the current time, then I'm sure many other games besides this series use the system, which questions the use of the term "notable".
"The Mana games are linked with a common mythology centered". Doesn't sound right to me. What is meant by "common mythology"?
No mention of Music, Development (I think), Story or common elements—which much space has been devoted to—in the lead. Information on gameplay is also sparse; it doesn't make for a comprehensive summary of the article.
"Occasionally, tears may be created by great powers in the dimensions, allowing powers to enter different realms." Without any further context of the plot in the lead, this is a confusing and illogical sentence. I know it's linked to the timeline statement, but it still just doesn't seem to fit.
The info in "Classic series" doesn't seem to fit continuous prose well. What we've got is a whole section that lacks cohesion as it details each game by paragraph. It would make more sense to have a table, like in Fire Emblem.
A question, who has determined what is in the "Classic series", and what isn't? In fact, has the term "classic series" been used by the developers themselves?
The "World of Mana" seems to add nothing about the overall context of the series, and suffers from the problems of the previous section. The majority of the text seems to be broken up by details and dates that prevents it from being read fluently. Why not mention how each game was notable, and what new features they offered to the series?
"the one featured in the first Final Fantasy titles". Shouldn't that be the first few titles?
"people who are not good at action games". "Not good" isn't encyclopaedic.
"an anthropomorphic peddler allows saving the game outside of towns". Needs rewording for better fluency
Way too much weight has been given to the Rabites and Flammies. I really think that "Common elements" should be cut down to half its current size, with all of the sections merged together.
"The music for Final Fantasy Adventure was composed by Kenji Ito and was his second original score." Again, awkward phrasing.
"Legend of Mana's score was composed by Yoko Shimomura and she considers it the one that best expresses herself". Again, awkward phrasing.
Section on "History" is brief, but I appreciate that such information will be hard to attain.
The "Reception" section needs to include information related to the series' native country, Japan.
Suggestion: Merge the section on "Games" with "History", with a table to account for all the games. This should offer a more cohesive and logical direction for the article. This is only a suggestion, though.
A good start, but too many problems currently. I feel that the article needs quite a large change in direction before becoming FA. Thanks. AshnardTalkContribs 20:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Begun working on the prose and trim, fixed the external link, but as for the history section, are you saying it's not comprehensive, and if so what is needed? Also, I have been basing the article off of the Kingdom Hearts (series) article, it's more similar in layout than Crazy Taxi, the other series FA. Thanks much Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've done all the your corrections, but I have 3 questions; the gameplay section matches the Kingdom Hearts (series) article, which is the only featured article of a video game other than Crazy Taxi, so to format it like Fire Emblem (series), which isn't featured would be strange, no? Also, you wanted context, and explanation in the games section of why the games are individually notable... but I looked at it again, and that's exactly what it does, doesn't it? Second, Why does the common elements section need to be trimmed? A lot of the material is out of universe, like merchandising information, so it's out of universe and shows the series notability. Finally, the question regarding the history section, what information would you like to see added? Other than that, all corrections have been done. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll answer each question individually:
1) It was just a suggestion of what I feel is better, but that may amount to just that—personal preference. While using Kingdom Hearts as a guideline, please remember that the same circumstances aren't exactly the same; this game has more titles than Kingdom Hearts and thus may warrant a table. But again, this is a matter of preference. If you look at it now, there are seven paragraphs, with each one focusing on a different game, which means that the Japanese translation, the release date, the format, and the developers all have to be repeated in the prose seven times in total.
2)My mistake; I guess that it does that mention this. As for Common Elements, I feel that far too much space is devoted to it, especially in comparison to other sections. While it does have some out-of-universe content, I feel that some of the detail and nuances could be cut down. Cut stuff like "The Flammies are described as "beautiful yet powerful beasts" created by the Moon Gods". Plus, is it really necessary to detail the the organisms' appearance when the images exist in the article? It's just at the moment, there's quite an imbalance in the article as the primarily in-universe section is about twice the size of the other sections.
3)The second paragraph of this section just detail factors that seem quite unrelated to the development process, and seems to be a reiteration of the "games" section. Try some specific development with games and basically a more comprehensive section about how the series developed from one stage into another. Try mentioning how the series gradually gained in popularity, and maybe an emphasis in the changes in representation of the series/graphics, or how the developers took a new approach. Basically, more behind-the-scenes context.
1) Having reformatted it like you suggested, it actually does look a lot better, much better than I thought it would! It also showed where there were information gaps, so I filled them in a bit.
2) I trimmed the common elements by consolidating the information, aka making thicker sentences and keeping the references, so it's noticeably trimmer. Let me know if you see more to be trimmed. Keep in mind that if you count the Common element, characters and story section of the Kingdom Hearts (series) article as one section, they are about the same size now.
3) As I was filling in the games section tables, and began to look for information to fill in the history section, I have found it fits better in the games section description. I would merge the history section into the games section, but it is very general and about the whole series. Is there any broad series-wide info that would go in the history section that you think is needed, or should we just fatten the games section descriptions?
Alright, I have filled in the gameplay sections and added a few sentences to the history section. Let me know what else is needed if there is anything else :) 04:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judgesurreal777 (talk • contribs)
Support: Nice work on addressing the issues. You may want to add an opening paragraph to "games", but that's about it. Well done. AshnardTalkContribs 12:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I moved the development section to above the game section, that way people will read the general outline of the franchises history, then the games section will discuss individual games and their history. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Great idea; it definitely works better than having an abrupt change from a lead to a big table. Nice work. AshnardTalkContribs 09:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment criterion 3 concerns:
Per WP:NFCC#3A: “As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole”. This article employees eight fair use images. Please critically evaluate the necessity of this many uses. Consider NCFF#8, which states “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” Do all of these images truly significantly contribute to our understanding?
Well I already removed the Secret of Mana logo, wasn't really needed, and I think that it would be fine to not have the manga comic cover; the rest though are of encyclopedic value. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Support: I may not agree with the layout/structure of the article, like the game table, but it works here. The article is comprehensive, well written, and looks to satisfy the FA criteria. (Guyinblack25talk 16:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC))
I personally don't like the way it looks, I think such tables clutter articles. Though I can't deny that it works in presenting the information and flow of the article. It mainly just boils down to my own personal style preferences. We just got different view points in what looks better. (Guyinblack25talk 19:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC))
I was iffy about it, but it really highlighted for me that content needed to be added once I boxed the title and the dates of release, since there was almost no text left :). If there was a way to present the information without the actual box outline that would be cool. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess it is personal preference, although I feel it looks better than alternatives, but more importantly functions better for representing information. I don't want to delve too deeply into this, but in the prosaic form, it was already categorised, i.e. *name*,*Jap translation**platform**release date**How it's notable*. What happens is there's no fluency in the text, and these features are just reiterated several times in continous prose. Why? AshnardTalkContribs 20:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll have to agree with Guy here. When comparing this article to e.g. Final Fantasy and The Legend of Zelda (series), I must say IMHO that latter's games sections look a lot neater. But that's just a preference, and no good reason to vote oppose. Overall, the article is quite good. 21:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Prince of Darkness (talk • contribs)
Are we seeing the same thing here? Anyway, what's the obsession with aesthetics? I guess it's just a conflict of preference. No worries ;) AshnardTalkContribs 21:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.