Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask

The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask
This article was removed as a featured article because of purported fraud on the part of Hollow Wilerding. I am resubmitting it as a featured article because I believe (as do many of those who voted for its removal) that it is FA quality; the reason for its demotion was entirely due to fraud. You can find the peer review here and the previous FAC here. The archive of the FARC is here &mdash; Cuivienen 20:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment OK, well done, now I'm totally conflicted. This is undoubtedly a fine article about a piece of gaming emphemera that I recall quite vividly, but... the commercial nature of the subject matter remains. This is not the fault of the writers: their NPOV is spot on. However, the LoZ franchise is a contemporary, worldwide recognised brand name, and as such, by flagging up this article, we may be validating more than just a historical curio in that it can be misconstued as brand placement. By pushing these types of entry towards the front page (and yes I know that it is never inevitable, but certainly FA is a requirement for a front pager), we really do open the project up to potential abuse, the nature of which is very difficult to determine from legitimate entries. --HasBeen 10:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nominate and support. &mdash; Cuivienen 20:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. As revolted as I was about the fraud over the last FAC, I think this article is worthy of FA status. Well-written, good screenshots with good copyright statuses, an excellent all-round description of the game and everything around it. Well referenced too. Let's not let despicable sockpuppeting defeat an outstanding article. Batmanand 22:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As a cruftist, I'd like to see more detail, but I can live with this. Support. Everyking 22:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Gosh, I LOVE this game. And incidentally, I started to play it the other day once again. But that all is by no means why I'm supporting this article. Comprehensive, well-written, factually accurate and the images have acceptable copyright stati (Latin plural). Maybe Image:ZeldaMMbox.jpg could do with a little bit of a fair use rationale, but it's passable. Great work.[[Image:Weather rain.png]] Soothing R  06:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Beautiful article, well referenced. This is the sort of article which gives fancruft a good name. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have to agree with HasBeen. I think there are legit quesitons about Wiki featuring a currently avaialable commerical product. Rlevse 14:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What are the legit questions? Does it promote something people profit off?  Sure, but so do a whole host of other FAs -- to some extent, any article could theoretically lead to more interest in the subject, and therefore increased sales of related books or other material.  Why should this have anything to do with FA status?  (I'm aware of the argument that putting this on the main page could look like advertising.  I find this argument completely unconvincing, and it is, in any case, irrelevant here, since it's a long-standing principle that every article is FAable, even if it would be inappropriate for the main page)  I haven't looked at the article in question, but what is the harm associated with a good, unbiased article on a branded topic?  Wikipedia could do far worse than contain neutral, accurate and comprehensive information on corporations and their products -- as a matter of fact, that would make Wikipedia a uniquely useful resource. Tuf-Kat 17:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Copies of Majora's Mask are no longer being produced. The game is well-known but has been obsoleted with the obsoletion of the N64 by the GameCube, and, soon, the Revolution. The product is only available through resales or through stores that never sold their full stock. It is not current. - Cuivienen 04:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment HasBeen, if you are going to mention "brand placement" as a concern for FA status, please cite policy. I see nothing about this at What is a featured article. --Pagrashtak 05:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment'. If it's no longer available (but it says it was avail as a GameCube til at least 2004), then perhaps the article should mention that. Not everyone will know this. Rlevse 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentCurrent?This is for the N64 which in videogame industry terms is ancient.This game is long gone from the spot light.The current systems are even being replaced (GC/xbox/ps2).--Technosphere83 18:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The above is a Comment, not an objection. The Legend of Zelda is a clearly recognisable brand name. That may lead to questions about product placement, not necessarily the content of the article. --HasBeen 09:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I realize that your statements are a comment and not an objection. However, this is not merely a vote &mdash; it is a discussion. I must once again ask you to cite policy; Tuf-Kat is correct, I don't feel that this is a valid concern. Please do not raise concerns about this article becoming a front page article here. Objections to that belong at WP:TFA, should MM be nominated for such. --Pagrashtak 18:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed Tuf-Kat and Pagrashtak. --Naha|(talk) 15:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree: this is as valid a comment to make under the circumstances as the rebuttals. --HasBeen 10:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support This article is very well referenced for a video game article, which are commonly plagued by reference problems. --Pagrashtak 05:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Well written, well sourced. Its a shame that the voting fraud incident occured with this article.  -- ZeWrestler   Talk 06:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Decided to help out and organize the footnotes under the new inline citation. this will automatically order information as more sources are added to the article.  -- ZeWrestler   Talk 06:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - as previous nomination - Hahnchen 18:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. The inaccuracies and structural flaws I pointed out during the last nomination have still not been addressed. Fredrik | tc 02:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just for the sake of clarity, would you mind copying the remaining actionable objections to this page? Thanks. --Pagrashtak 04:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See below. Fredrik | tc 20:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is surprisingly good. Although it could use a bit more clarity, I say that I have to Support this article. Dee man45 04:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - great article! --Naha|(talk) 15:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Here are some issues that come to mind.
 * "It received some criticism for this" is unsourced.
 * The "fixed 3D" issue should be mentioned among the technical developments, not gameplay, because it has nothing to do with gameplay (it is in fact directly related to the extra 4 MB of memory)
 * "possibly the Lost Woods" is pure speculation
 * The section on "Basic controls" isn't needed. All of it except the first sentence which really should be moved to the top of the "Gameplay" section and related to OoT (basic controls are the same in both games) should be merged with "Masks and transformations"
 * One image has visible emulation artifacts, several images are in the wrong resolution.
 * Most images are boring; only one shows action, none shows dialogue. Certainly images could be used to demonstrate more of the gameplay and interesting settings. At least, I think there should be one image of each transformation, and the "Dungeons" section should be illustrated with several images.
 * "while its predecessor had been cited as one of the greatest video games of all time, Majora's Mask has not." is incorrect; the article even cites an example further down. HW reverted my correction of this error without explanation.
 * The text is littered with poor prose and questionable conclusions. While most seems to be correct, much of it is illogically structured, linking things that are connected or emphasizing facts that are not important. Here is just one example:
 * The gameplay in Majora's Mask is arguably deeper than that of Ocarina of Time. Its predecessor features bombs, arrows, and music (in the form of an ocarina) as tools to solve many of its puzzles; Majora's Mask includes multiple instruments as well as time travel and character transformations through certain masks to add further layers of difficulty and variety to the quests in the game.
 * Both games extensively use predecessor feature bombs, arrows, and music, so this misses the point. The use of multiple instruments adds no depth to the gameplay so it shouldn't be mentioned. The line "to add further layers of difficulty and variety to the quests in the game" doesn't say anything.


 * More generally, "one thought, one paragraph" is violated in multiple places. For example, the first paragraph under "Gameplay" jumps between comparing the game to Ocarina and (redundantly) explaining the storyline.
 * I want a separate section, with more content, about the use of a three-day time cycle. It is by far the most interesting and unique aspect of MM's gameplay
 * What is "The proceeding rooms are filled with obstacles through which Link and Tatl must navigate." about? This is trivial and doesn't advance the story.
 * I think the "Dungeons" section should be renamed, merged with "Characters", expanded to cover the entire world of Termina, trimmed, and given "Main article:" links to the articles Termina and The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask characters.
 * Most of the story can be told without the spoiler tags.
 * The information on development is incomplete. The section should include the original working title, important announcement dates, and at which game shows it was previewed.
 * There is nothing on bugs or speedrunning (except a single external link for the latter).
 * Fredrik | tc 20:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, acqusations. Although most are reasonable, there are a few I must object to: Dee man45 03:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The gameplay is deeper: In ocarina of time, songs were used to warp, and many were one-timers; only the Song of Time and Zelda's Lullaby were used semi-frequently.  The songs in Majora's Mask are used several times throughout the game to accomplish many different tasks;  Every song is used at least twice in normal play.  Also, Majora's mask has several sidequests; almost every mask has its own task needed to acquire it, and many involve using earlier masks or songs gained.  Using these masks in gameplay allows for several different circumstances, and several different methods used to defeat enemies, and rarely bosses (see the Goht section for an example of different methods)
 * You are asking for a separate section about the three day time limit in order to appeal to what you believe to be the best aspect of the game; unfortunately, everyone else doesn't think the same way you do. It could be considered a gimmick, or it could be considered pure genius; this difference of perception could cause a flame war between fans of the game on Wikipedia. A situation such as this would be terrible.
 * "The proceeding rooms are filled with obstacles through which Link and Tatl must navigate," advances the story; it shows that Link and Tatl were with each other for a period of time before the true quest began.


 * Gameplay is deeper
 * No objection at all. The problem with the cited paragraph is its complete failure to describe what you just did (!)


 * You are asking for a separate section about the three day time limit in order to appeal to what you believe to be the best aspect of the game; unfortunately, everyone else doesn't think the same way you do. It could be considered a gimmick, or it could be considered pure genius; this difference of perception could cause a flame war between fans of the game on Wikipedia. A situation such as this would be terrible.


 * Hold on a second; I didn't say it is the best of the game, or the most clever. I said it is the most peculiar aspect of the game, which is why it warrants extra attention; this would be true even if it were just a gimmick.


 * In any case, the gimmick view doesn't seem to be well supported. On the contrary, most critics refer to it as being central to the gameplay (along with masks). For example: "The object of Majora's Mask revolves around two things: masks and time.", "The way that time flows and is interleaved with the masks is what's most impressive." (IGN), "the game's time-sensitive nature" (Gamespot), "time [...] happens to play a very important role in this game" (Gaming Age).


 * If there were a real controversy regarding whether the time aspect is a gimmick, the case for writing about it in depth would only be more compelling.


 * "The proceeding rooms are filled with obstacles through which Link and Tatl must navigate," advances the story; it shows that Link and Tatl were with each other for a period of time before the true quest began.


 * The game segment advances the story, but this sentence doesn't explain that. This problem occurs elsewhere in the article. Fredrik | tc 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Your points are taken; I retract my statements, although I still support this article. Dee man45 16:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, I just put a lot of work into the article. I looked into the "It received some crit..." issue, and didn't find a lot to support so I rewrote to avoid saying that. I removed the Lost Woods speculation. The Basic Controls section has been absorbed by Gameplay and Masks + trans. The "while it's pred..." sentence has been rewritten. I rewrote the "poor prose" example, but I imagine this hasn't yet solved that entire point for you. I rewrote the "proceeding rooms" bit to convey that the section made Link get used to his new Deku Scrub body. The Dungeons section is now Termina and includes the characters section and the rewritten Temple/Boss sections, as well as the requested links. I moved the spoiler tags to not include the first part, which is not really a spoiler, but I don't know about moving it any further. As far as the bugs and speedrunning, I feel that there is nothing notable that would warrant inclusion in that section. It is Wikiproject policy at WP:CVG to keep information such as bugs to a minimum and only include them if they are notable. It would be appreciated if you could look over the article and strike out any objections that have been addressed. --Pagrashtak 06:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but the prose and use of images still needs to be improved. Certainly long bug lists are inappropriate, but major ones (or the lack thereof) and mention of bugs from Ocarina of Time that have been fixed would be interesting. Speedrunning is certainly relevant; in addition to the current world record, the "6 day challenge" should be covered. Fredrik | tc 03:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought I had addressed the "Dungeons" issue, do you feel it needs more work? I've just addressed the "development" section issue also. I'm not really sure how I'd write a section on the lack of bugs. While I also would find a section on speedrunning interesting, I'm just not sure it's encyclopedic. I think there would be a lot of people who don't find that interesting. I think we might have to disagree on those points. --Pagrashtak 03:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think it needs more work; images would really help. The development section looks fine now. Regarding speedrunning, there's plenty of precedent; see for example Quake or Metroid series. Fredrik | tc 05:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A "three-day cycle" section has been added. I also moved material around to keep the "three-day cycle" and "masks" thoughts more confined to the proper areas. I placed the new section below the masks section, as I feel the masks are more important than the three-day cycle. --Pagrashtak 16:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been reorganizing as I edit and have just done some copyedits and slight reorg. Please see if your "one thought one paragraph" and "poor prose, questionable conclusions" objections have been addressed. If not, perhaps you could provide examples. Regarding the dungeons section, I believe I've addressed the renaming and merging bullet (which can now be struck), just not the image bullet, correct? --Pagrashtak 22:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Beautiful! The images still need work, but this objection is minor. I will therefore change my vote to support. Fredrik | tc 05:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Object Support I agree with Fredrik - nice! WhiteNight T 22:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support this is the level of quality I have been trying to achieve with the Xenosaga page over the past week or so. Outstanding article, and I agree with a previous user: it "gives fancruft a good name".  I am impressed. 14:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. A lot of work has gone into this article over the last few days, and it really has improved markedly. Great job! Jacoplane 17:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - formatting looks good, the information's good. I'm not a fan of the game, but this certainly looks like a great article. (Ibaranoff24 23:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC))


 * Support - Great article, very well done everyone! -- d a r k li i g h t talk 10:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. This is acceptable enough for me. 64.231.168.58 20:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Oppose. The article is fairly comprehensive, but I'm experiencing a few issues with references and detail:
 * There is no citation for the release dates of the game. I know this is picky, but if one was unsure of the date and required it to complete an article, they could have slipped any random date into the slot.
 * The "Temples" section is far too detailed for an encyclopedia. The descriptions of how to battle and defeat the video game boss are much too in depth, and an everyday, common reader would probably have no desire to read every single word in each sentence.
 * Twinmold, the guardian of Stone Tower Temple, is actually two creatures: giant sand worms (inspired by previous Zelda boss Lanmola). Citation? Source?
 * Lack of wikilinks, as I've noted on the talk page.
 * Players must plan what to accomplish in one cycle — attempting to complete too much could result in running out of time half-way through a task and being forced to abandon it and start over in another cycle. This is a poorly-written sentence. Could serve as a run-on sentence.


 * 64.231.163.117 02:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment For the date, 64.231.16...can I just call you 64? I'll look it up, but I'm sure that the one there is the true one. The Temples are a critical part of gameplayand the oeverall experience; I'll try to trim it down, but it is still important. There is no source whatsoever that Twinmold was inspired by Lanmola, so I'll delete that, but anyone can tell you that Twinmold is a double sand worm boss.  I agree with wikilinks and the run-on; I'll see if I can do something about that. Dee man45 20:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you mind signing with a non-annon account. Also, i looked into your date issue, i came across the following. and . In both articles, the dates don't agree with each other.  So just to point that out. -- ZeWrestler   Talk 04:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

As for the double dates, gamespot is by far a more reliable source than rpgamer; an official liscened franchise of the industry is usually more correct than a fansite. Dee man45 20:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would register an account on Wikipedia, but because my IP address is within the Toronto District Library (the 64.231... range is owned by the Toronto library), and Hollow Wilerding abused Wikipedia by what it appears to have been sock puppetry on the FACs, I cannot register an account. I'll be accused of being Hollow Wilerding. So as of present day, I can edit anonymously only. Anyway, on the issue of the dates, a user has to locate release dates that are precise and the same as opposed to the wacky all-over-the-place figures. The rest of my opposition needs to be referred to. 64.231.163.10 20:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd still rather you regiserted than an IP. even if your from Hollow's area. -- ZeWrestler  Talk 21:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See your talk page ZeWrestler. 64.231.163.10 21:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)