Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Final Fantasy VI

Final Fantasy VI
I think this article is close to the level of Final Fantasy VIII. Both articles have similar styles and whatnot; the prose may need work, but I'll leave you guys as the judges of that. I'll keep this nom short, since I basically explained everything on the FF8 nomination below. &mdash; Deckill e r 15:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Previous nomination last year
 * Co-nom/Support: Pretty much what Deckiller said above and what we both said below. This article's pretty solid, I think. There might be a few spots where things could be better, but that's what you guys are here to determine. Overall, like Deck, I feel that it's about level with FFVIII below. Ryu Kaze 15:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Co-nom/support. Improved a lot since it was last nominated and failed.  Then, the censorship section was overdone, now it has been toned down.  Then, there were only three references, now there are thirty-five.  It's definitely on par with FFVIII (and in a way I feel it's better, but that's just me).  Redundancies and weasel words are pretty much gone. Crazyswordsman 16:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And talk about consistency; FF8 is 43 KB long, and this article is 45 KB long o.O &mdash; Deckill e r 16:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. We have identical twins, just about different things!  Like I said, we should have put them up together, heh. Crazyswordsman 16:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Technically they are close to being nominated at the same time. Just one nomination is older than the other.-- ZeWrestler  Talk 21:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - It is truly amazing to see how the article has changed since I nominated it last year. The quality of it has improved dramatically and the editors who lead the recent round of improvements to it should be commended.  Great job guys. -- ZeWrestler   Talk 21:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support The development section doesn't have a single inline citation. Once that's fixed, full support. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll see if we can fix that sometime soon. Ryu Kaze 23:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, I got us some references in there. Ryu Kaze 00:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. The reception section is pretty skimpy considering this is commonly listed by critics as one on the greatest games of all time. This article is well on its way, but it's lacking significant discussion of what the critics particularly found so great about it --someone who had never played this game would not have a sense of what made it so special and historically important, ie, the unusual depth (and length) of story, the unique visual aesthetic, etc. Also, am I correct in my recollection that this was the first RPG to juggle such a large cast of playable characters? I would love to see an FA on this, but considering it's one of the most beloved games of all time, I feel this article is incomplete without giving the reader a sense of what set it apart from other games of its era. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 22:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Problem is, it would be difficult to reference. Crazyswordsman 22:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we do make mention of FFVI having the largest FF cast, but the problem with what critics thought of the game is how old it is. There's certainly reviews buried in 12 year old issues of gaming magazines somewhere, but most of us don't have those and the most we've been able to find online were some scores that were given out back then (which I was surprised to find even that). Nonetheless, I certainly understand the concern with this section and felt much the same. It's just that given our limitations, I'm not sure what we'll be able to do about it. Of course, that just makes the information all the more valuable. Ryu Kaze 23:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I found a retroreview by RPGamer and a review from IGN for the Anthology version. They make some comments about the effect rendered at the time of the original release, so that'll have to do, I think. I'll try working them in. Ryu Kaze 00:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've gone back and made a ton of edits to the Reception area. I believe it should now address your concerns, Lee. Thank you for your input and please let us know if there's more that could be done. Ryu Kaze 01:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reception and criticism looks much better now, Ryu. I'll see if I can find anything to fix later tonight.&mdash; Deckill e r 02:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking better -- speedy work! I'd still like to see a smidge more in the "gameplay" section acknowledging what was new to FF in this game (the esper-system, and possibly the degree of customization allowed for by the equipment/relic system). Also, if I'm correctly remembering that this was the first FF to allow the player to use hi-tech weaponry, that's probably deserving of a nod. Incidentally, has anyone tried a proquest/magazine database search at their local libray? I'm not sure how commonly game magazines are archived, but I'd be willing to give it a shot, if no one else has. I believe in particular, old Nintendo Power magazines are not especially rare. Overall, good work, though. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 18:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fast response. I'll see if there's a way to fit in the stuff about Relics, as I believe you're right with regard to their innovative inclusion. As for hi-tech weaponry, there's only one character who uses any (Edgar), but I'll see if there's any way to fit it into the flow. Thanks. I'll leave you a message on your talk page after I've addressed these matters. Ryu Kaze 19:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, Lee, I've made several changes and accomodated everything you mentioned. Ryu Kaze 20:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support wonderful game, and the article is more deserving of the FA than ever. igordebraga ≠ 15:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Object – The Game Boy Advance section should probably have a future game tag. The Reception and criticism has absolutely no criticism whatsoever. Additionally, the PlayStation section needs work:
 * The only notable changes to gameplay involve the correction of a few software bugs from the original, the addition of new bugs and the addition of a new "memo save" feature, allowing players to quickly save their progress to the PlayStation's RAM. The rerelease included other special features, such as a bestiary and artwork gallery.
 * I believe the addition of a cutscene is also notable. What bugs were fixed, what bugs were created in the process? Source, if possible. ♠ SG →Talk 16:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There's one in the story section. Crazyswordsman 17:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll add the future game tag, but I'm not seeing quite how the Reception and criticism section is lacking in criticism. It features two paragraphs of it. Two paragraphs of substantial size, in fact. Criticism isn't just negative views of something. Criticism can be positive or negative. It's merely the act of analyzing something and passing judgement on it. Even were it only negative, though, there's quite a bit of negative criticism in the second paragraph.


 * I'll see if I can find out what added cutscene you're referring for adding to that sentence you quoted, by the way (you weren't referring to the FMVs were you? Those are mentioned earlier in the paragraph and aren't changes to gameplay anyway), and also see if I can get us a source on the bugs. Ryu Kaze 19:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SG, I've added the future game template and gotten some references for the bugs, as well as added a few other references throughout the article. Ryu Kaze 20:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Great work. Nothing but support from me. ♠ SG →Talk 00:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Thank you very much! Ryu Kaze 01:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. Crazyswordsman 03:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support This article has come a long way. Tarret 00:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Ryu Kaze 00:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks from me, too. Crazyswordsman 03:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support This article is good, even someone who didn't play the game like me can follow it easily Renmiri 01:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. ^_^ Ryu Kaze 01:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ren. Crazyswordsman 03:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment many thanks for your supports. &mdash; Deckill e r 03:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reluctantly, I have to object. It's well written, and the flurry of activity recently has only served to improve it further. But that's a problem in and of itself: the last time this was brought up for FAC, I had to concede that the article was just being too much, and too quickly, following the initial FAC posting. At this point, the article does not appear to be stable, one of the listed requirements for featured articles. Obviously, this is no fault of the editors who've toiled away at the thing, and I'm loathe to respond this way, but there you go. – Seancdaug 20:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * During an FAC, changes made in accordance with other things brought up wouldn't count toward an instability problem I would think. It would either be leave things that people are saying is wrong with it, or fix them. Unless you mean all the work done immediately prior to the FAC, in which case no one would have nominated it for FA in the first place without that. All that work was performed for the purpose of getting it ready for the nomination. Looking at it with these newest changes, it's very likely to remain as it is unless another problem is brought up here that needs to be addressed. Ryu Kaze 21:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Like Ryu said, addressing concerns during an FAC doesn't count towards instability. The article was pretty much stable for several months, and edits made in good faith don't necessarilly make an article instable, especially when only three or four editors are touching it. Crazyswordsman 22:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sean, the stability criteria was designed for instances where the article was undergoing massive swings of changes based on an edit war, not improvements. &mdash; Deckill e r 02:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. The stability required was designed to ensure that the article was stable. Period. Featured articles should be the kind of article that we can cite in a scholarly manner, and feel reasonably safe that, when we come back in a few months, little of substance will have changed. In particular, Crazyswordsman, it's not an issue of good vs. bad faith, and I appreciate that the changes have not only been made in good faith, but have served to improve the article. There's nothing wrong with an article being edited and adjusted to improve it as needed. And, quite frankly, I'd prefer that such positive changes be made even if it results a period of relative instability. But until the article reaches a point where it is obvious that it will "not change significantly from day to day" ("and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars," not "because it is the subject of ongoing edit wars"), it's cannot be cited as a reliable, scholarly source. And if it cannot be cited as such, for whatever reason, it's not ready to be featured. It tears me up to vote like this, and I don't want to slap you guys in the face for all your hard work and the superb article you've produced, but there's still the one additional factor of time, and and that's pretty much out of anyone's hands. Again, I'm really horribly sorry, everyone. – Seancdaug 03:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I can understand that viewpoint, which is why Raul often waits several days when a objection based on a stability viewpoint is raised. &mdash; Deckill e r 03:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we're still waiting on Lee Bailey to come back and review some recent changes anyway. Ryu Kaze 12:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Seancdaug, after rereading the stability requirement that is currently in place, all I can say about the argument is that it is a matter of interpretation, which would inevitably be left up to Raul. Is there anything beyond the stability requirement that would cause you not to support this article? -- ZeWrestler   Talk 13:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that's pretty much it. – Seancdaug 15:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support This has gone a long way. I also looked at the edit summary and saw Crazyswordman, Ryu Kaze, Hibana, and deckiller's hard work to make this of FA status. Extreme support here. -ScotchMB 01:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the support and nice words. Ryu Kaze 01:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Kudos, buddy. Crazyswordsman 03:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per Renmiri; I've never played the game either and I've always been a bit mystified as to the frenzy it invokes among FF fans; the article explains it well. I imagine that's a large part of what brings people to this article - "what's the big deal about this game, anyway?" - and that's definitely answered.  Great job, guys.  -RaCha&#39;ar 15:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) &mdash; Deckill e r 16:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I imagine every FF game will one day be featured! Did a thorough read of the article and liked it. Nice work. Thunderbrand 16:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! &mdash; Deckill e r 16:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hold things up! The changes that have been made here are all for the better -- good work again. I had a few little nagging qualms about the respresentation of critical response, so I went looking for sources, and found some old Nintendo Power issues that cover the game, as well as a reference to EGM's coverage. I was going to quickly add these things in order to avoid slowing things up, but by the time I re-touched the relevant sections, I felt iffy about it, especially considering that stability issues have been raised above. I decided to split the difference and place what I came up with in my sandbox, here. The article is really well done in any case, so please consider my vote a Weak Support without any changes, or Full Support with some reference to mention of the game's critical standing in the lead -- my version does not have to be taken literally, but take whatever's useful. Sorry to be extra-picky. ^_^ -- (Lee)Bailey(talk)  19:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Lee. Your research into this matter is also very much appreciated. I'll certainly be adding some of that info to the article. I realize Sean has some concerns over stability, but making the article's content the best it can be comes first. Thanks again! Ryu Kaze 20:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Like I said earlier, the stability requirement is subject to interpretation which in the end Raul will look at. -- ZeWrestler  Talk 21:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks from me for everybody's input.  I don't have much time during the week to monitor the article and debates, so I'll just make this a universal thanks for everyone's input from today. Crazyswordsman 00:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Objections all satisfied now, and as I read this over, it looks very much like an FA to me. Thanks for a great CVG article. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 12:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And thank you for your constructive input and the aid you offered with those additional criticism references. Ryu Kaze 13:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks from me as well. Sir Crazyswordsman 01:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support, good job at bringing out the interesting aspects of the game and its significance in the broader world. However, I noticed that one of your references, #54, is broken-GameFAQs doesn't allow you to link to FAQs directly. The same guide is hosted elsewhere, if you prefer.--BigCow 20:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks a million. Sir Crazyswordsman 22:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Much thanks to ya. Ryu Kaze 23:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, Great game with a great article that has more than enough to be the FA. GShton 03:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Sir Crazyswordsman 11:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been lazy in thank yous, so...many thanks all! &mdash; Deckill e r 15:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - You guys are the greatest, thanks for working so hard on making game-relatd articles up to FA status. --PresN 03:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Conditional support - add spoiler tags. Would it really harm the article to add spoiler tags to the plot? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you. About spoiler tags, I understand your point, but most of us at WP:CVG feel that spoiler tags are redundant and excessive.  One of this disclaimers on Wikipedia specifically mentions that spoilers will be given without warning. Sir Crazyswordsman 12:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, they're in the most obvious section they could possibly be in: "Plot". Plot details will obviously be in a section marked "Plot". Anyway, thanks to both A Link to the Past and PresN. Ryu Kaze 13:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)