Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blue Dragon (video game)/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 SandyGeorgia 20:14, 6 June 2009.

Blue Dragon (video game)

 * Nominator(s): --( NGG ) 12:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been working on this article for a while and now I'm ready to push it to FA criteria so I can move to other projects. I would appreciate it if all reviews were clear and contain something that can be fixed. Thanks, --( NGG ) 12:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE.
 * Fixed. MuZemike 14:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.tothegame.com/x360-4376-blue-dragon-for-microsoft-xbox-360.html
 * A video game database. See: ToTheGame.--( NGG ) 16:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.whattheyplay.com/products/blue-dragon-for-xbox-360/
 * Whattheyplay is a website used by parents to help them pick games for children. See: What They Play--( NGG ) 16:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.planetxbox360.com/article_2556/Blue_Dragon_Review (Note this would be fine as a review, but it's being used in the Plot section)
 * Reviews can be regularly used for plot sections if the part is talked about in the review which it is.--( NGG ) 16:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * http://kotaku.com/gaming/japan/blue-dragon-the-manga-214815.php
 * A highly trusted game database. See: Kotaku


 * http://anime.about.com/b/2009/02/02/toonami-jetstream-says-goodbye.htm
 * Current ref 2 ... it should be "Australian Classificiation Organization", not "Austillian Classification Orginization"
 * Current ref 6 (Stewart, Bob) is lacking a publisher
 * Is it "Prima Games's Blue Dragon Official Game Guide, Prima Games" or "Blue Dragon Official Game Guide. Prima Games"? (Last one lacks page numbers too)
 * Current refs 24 thorugh 29 lack retreived on dates
 * Current ref 41 (needs to note its in Japanese)
 * Current ref 48 (Juba, Joe..) lacks a publisher
 * Current ref 49 (Ouroboros) lacks a publisher
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. For Kotaku, the author of the piece determines the reliablity, why is this author reliable? As for planetxbox, the site itself needs to satisfy WP:RS before the review can be used for the plot section. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well to start, Planet Xbox is operated by Game Spy which is reliable because it's operated by IGN, a first person source to news.--( NGG ) 17:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen from exploring the site, Kotaku is a first person source also and not just anyone can edit it. But Kotaku is a trusted source and is used in lots of FA so I'm not sure what else to say.--( NGG ) 17:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All of your concerns were fulfilled to the best of my ability.--( NGG ) 17:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you read the dispatch I linked to? It explains how to best address my concerns. Just because something has been used in an older FA doesn't mean it's reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * About.com is a first person source run by The New York Times Company which is also trusted.--( NGG ) 18:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * About.com covered here: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 16. Also, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "first person source". Do you mean "primary source"? Or do you mean something else? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehe(scratches head embarrassed)yes thats what I meant. So I'll find a link to replace about.com and I have replaced the Kotaku citation.--( NGG ) 18:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The link to ToTheGames was replaced with another link.--( NGG ) 19:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Whattheyplay is partly owned by 1UP.com but if thats not notable enough I'll find a replacement.--( NGG ) 19:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * done – Link removed.--( NGG ) 19:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The plot section could use some tightening. I'd take a stab at it but it's been too long since I played it, but points to consider are:
 * A "setting" section may help, moving much of the first para in the plot into this to explain the storms and land sharks.

Done. --( NGG ) 05:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A bit too much detail on the hestitation of the characters to take the spheres (it's an important plot point re: Zora later, but not in that much detail)

Done. --( NGG ) 05:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Assume the reader has no familarity with the game world; city and village names without context make little sense.

Done. --( NGG ) 05:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The ending is weak: there probably needs to be more on the ancients and the "change in configuration" that takes place.

Done. --( NGG ) 05:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is all fixable, and again, if I were surer of details I would take a stab. --M ASEM (t) 15:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've taken a revision to the plot section - again, there was too much focus on some details, too little on others. You may want to include more about Destroy, which IIRC, is discussed when you explore that city populated by paintings? --M ASEM  (t) 20:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment this should be moved to Blue Dragon (game). 15:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Um...why? There is no other article by the name Blue Dragon.--( NGG ) 23:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Removed graphics per WP:FAC instructions; it can mess with transclusions, making the page load time slower, etc. Steve  T • C 14:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Twas Now
 * "It was also the longest Xbox 360 game" — The longest game in what sense, expected gameplay hours, or something else? If you mention this in the lead, it should be addressed later in the article. This also needs a reference.
 * Well to start off, Blue Dragon is clearly the longest because it takes all the space from 3 full DVD disks as noted here so that statement does have a ref. Right now I'm mentioning it in the Gameplay section.--( NGG ) 12:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The number of disks doesn't determine the length of the game. It's a good indicator, but I think you are putting your original research into the article by saying "There are many disks, therefore it is long." The content of those disks could just as well be filled with graphics, high quality sound files, and so on, or with bonus content that isn't even found in the game. A ref that says "this was the longest Xbox 360 game" is needed. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.--( NGG ) 13:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "and a Blue Dragon faceplate" — Is there a more descriptive term instead of "faceplate". I had to Google the term, and I suspect it is a term only familiar to Xbox owners.
 * Done.--( NGG ) 13:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "The gameplay [...] is more traditional than many modern console role-playing games" — "Traditional" is ambiguous. Is it "more traditional" because it resembles early CRPGs, or because of something else? Perhaps rephrase this to avoid the word traditional altogether, because the reader probably doesn't know what makes a traditional CRPG different from a modern CRPG (assuming that's what is meant).
 * This looks better now, but still reads a bit awkwardly. It repeats: "older Japanese role-playing-games [...] older role-playing-games" in the same sentence. Are these turn-based elements from the older Japanese role-playing games (mid 1980s: Dragon Warrior, Final Fantasy, etc.), or from even older role-playing games in general (early 1980s: Akalabeth, Ultima, Wizardry, etc.)? This is now a minor issue—you fixed the major problem, which was clarifying what "traditional" meant. But I'm interested in this part. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "a number of genre-standard elements" — Clarify what these elements are. The typical reader probably doesn't know the standard elements of CRPGs.
 * Explain in the "Gameplay" section that the player controls a party of characters, rather than controlling only one at a time (and include a link to Party (role playing games)). Based on the screenshot with the shadows, I guess you control all five at once?
 * Done.--( NGG ) 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Capitalization of "Shadow"/"shadow" should be consistent. How is it capitalized in the game?
 * Done.--( NGG ) 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The prose of the "Story" section could use work. A lot of it seems to skip explanations of seemingly important plot twists.
 * "Following this, they must journey through the world, locate the survivors of Talta Village, find and defeat Nene, and shut down his multiple mechat bases." — Is this necessary here? The article describes this in the next two paragraphs (although it only mentions shutting down one mechat base).
 * Done.--( NGG ) 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "the King decides to implement a plan to destroy one of Nene's bases near Jibral using Shu and his friends along with Zola. After the base is destroyed..." — Was this really such a quickly executed attack that the actual battle doesn't even warrant mention? What about the other bases they were supposed to destroy?
 * Done.--( NGG ) 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Nene absorbs their Shadows (except Zola's, who had been separated from the party earlier). Shu, [...] teleports the party, except Zola," — Just mention earlier that Zola was separated, then you don't need to explain twice that she isn't around.
 * Done.--( NGG ) 21:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What ever happens to Kluke and her exploding collar?
 * Done.--( NGG ) 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This has not been addressed. All it says is they attempt to remove it. Was that attempt successful? Or did they remove it later? Or did it kill her? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.--( Next-Genn-Gamer ) 00:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "The party then reunite with Zola, who supplies an airship—the Land Shark." — I thought the Land Shark was used by the bad guys. Explain how Zola got this. Also, where do they meet up?
 * Done.--( NGG ) 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Now this part has another problem: "the party reunites with Zola, who supplies a mechat for them to peruse Nene". I don't think "peruse" is the word you want. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Zola was working for Nene all along [...] Zola then betrays Nene." — Why does she betray him? This seems like a rather important part of the story, so take the time to explain. (Did she just have a sudden change of conscience? Did the others persuade her? Was she only pretending to help Nene all along?)
 * Done.--( NGG ) 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "One of the boss themes, "Eternity", was written by Sakaguchi, composed by Uematsu" — What's the difference here? Usually "writer" and "composer" are used interchangeably in regards to music. Does it mean Sakaguchi was the lyricist?
 * "were sold out in Japan well before the December 7, 2006 release date" — How long is "well before". A more precise timeframe can probably be found, e.g. "sold out in Japan by August 2006".
 * The "Reception" section seems a bit short. Look for reliably published reviews listed at GameRankings or Metacritic, and you might find that some of them cover aspects of the game that weren't mentioned in the reviews already used.
 * A lot more references are needed all over the place (I can be more specific, but I'll let you address everything else first).
 * The formatting of dates in the references throughout the article should be changed from the "2000-01-01" format. The standard in the article's text is "January 1, 2000", so the rest should follow that standard.
 * Some of the references do not seem to support the statements. One example is "Viz Media later released the first volume of the manga as simply "Ral Grad" in February 2008." — The reference doesn't mention this is based on Blue Dragon.
 * At least two sources are questionable:
 * http://www.toonamiinfolink.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1189 — looks like a forum.
 * http://www.animenation.net/blog/2006/11/30/blue-dragon-anime-series-coming/ — looks like a blog.

That's it for now. I may do a full reference check later. You should find someone to do an image review, as well. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A couple more print sources would be beneficial, but this isn't a showstopper for me.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.