Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Video games developed by Key/archive1

Video games developed by Key

 * Contributor(s): Juhachi

This topic was delisted last December because Rewrite had not become at least a GA within the grace period. Now that it finally is a GA, I'm renominating the topic. --  十  八  21:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment There is one tagged dead link in Kanon. Glimmer721  talk  00:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--  十  八  06:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support All high quality, well-written articles with proper sourcing, and I have also reviewed one myself. A great job by Juhachi.--Khanassassin ☪ 19:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Now this is the result of years of hard work. Great to see that Wikipedia is having very good articles on a topic which isn't even widely known to most people (outside of Japan and the otaku subculture of course). Since Key's visual novels are quite popular in Japan and their anime adaptations have also been well-received, I think it's just fitting that our articles on them are among the best. Great job and keep up the good work! By the way, should One: Kagayaku Kisetsu e be included? I know it isn't a Key game, but it was the first game which had most of Key's staff, including Jun Maeda, so it's like the predecessor game of Kanon, Air, Clannad, Little Busters! etc. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose lead article ("List of video games developed by Key") no longer meets the requirements of featured lists, particularly MOS:DTT. Please address this.  It would be a shame to see the entire topic demoted because the lead article is no longer featured/good.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And how exactly does it not meet MOS:DTT? I attempted to tweak the tables, but I don't know exactly what you were opposing. As for the featured list criteria, I assume your issue is only with the style, namely 5(a) as it clearly satisfies all the other criteria. --  十  八  01:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Table now meets MOS:DTT. I would prefer to see websites which require registration to have the refs tagged as such, but that's not vital.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Meets the criteria. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Closed with consensus to promote. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)