Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages


 * 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 promoted 17:31, 25 May 2007.

The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages
previous FAC

Self-nomination. I recently put this up for FAC, but the discussion over whether this should be one or two articles stalled the nomination. After the nomination was removed, discussion took place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games and was strongly in favor of the merge, so I'm resubmitting.  Pagra shtak  12:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Support- I was initially worried about a lack of graphics/audio sections, but development is well-researched and exhaustive. Couldn't see any grammar issues, but I can barely read, so don't go by my eyes. ;) I still wish they were seperate, but what'cha gonna do. ;) Good job Pagra. David Fuchs( talk / frog blast the vent core! ) 23:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to co-nominate this one as a helper and someone who participated in the previous debate. &mdash; Deckiller 12:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support The article is well sourced and comprehensive in its coverage. It is well written, and non-free images have appropriate rationales. Jay32183 17:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Good development section? Yes. Good plot section? Yes. Good lead? Yes. Good reception section? Yes. But it discusses absolutely nothing about the sound, the visuals, who created them, nothing. On top of that, the gameplay section is not developed enough. It still lacks any explanation on the mechanics - it implies that the sword was not on the same level, but then it says it is. The first sentence almost describes ALttP - "sword is the primary weapon, and everything else is lesser". - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To say "absolutely nothing" is a great exaggeration. The article states that graphics and sounds were copied from Link's Awakening, and the reception section covers graphics and sound as well. The development section gives a clear picture of who created the game, even mentioning display difficulties. As for the gameplay section, I don't understand your complaint. It states that the sword is the primary weapon, but is not permanently equipped. This is an accurate description. If you feel something is missing, please say what.  Pagra shtak  19:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The article tells us how good the sound and visuals are, and where they originated from. That's definitely not enough. And the statement that Link uses the sword as his primary weapon implies that it's always assigned, and then you state that it isn't and that you don't have to equip it. Saying that it's the primary weapon is not necessary and is potentially confusing. And it still doesn't explain the mechanics - it states that you can remove the sword and shield, but not that you can equip two things at once. Also, the fact that this never went through the Peer review shows that this FAC is far too preemptive. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * First you said "it discusses absolutely nothing about the sound, the visuals, who created them", now you said "The article tells us how good the sound and visuals are, and where they originated from." You also state that discussing the primary weapon of an action-adventure game is unnecessary, but then claim that the gameplay section is not comprehensive. This did go through peer review, as I stated in the previous FAC, and I would have been more than happy to respond to these comments if they had been raised then. Right now, I'm having a hard time even telling what you want.  Pagra shtak  19:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I told you what I want - more indepth coverage of the gameplay. It describes the mechanics as if they're a passing note. And who cares what I said before? Do you claim that the coverage of the game's sound and visuals is comprehensive enough? And the fact that no one replied is not a good excuse - that just means that the article was never properly assessed. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just read the "Gameplay" section, and it seems to me that any further in-depth, and it will border on a GameFAQs guide. I think the level of detail there now is perfectly fine. The fact that Link can or cannot unequip a sword is minutia that has no place here. — Brian ( talk ) 22:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that this is a part of the gameplay mechanic - which is barely covered - has a very big place. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The article's coverage of audio is optimal; I'm sure if Pagra could find more, he would have found it. If there is a ceiling to the amount of information available as a topic, meeting that ceiling is comprehensive in relation to the subject at hand. As for the gameplay, this article covers gameplay in the level of depth generally seen in video game FAs; therefore, it is fine when compared to the current interpretation of the FA criteria by the vast majority of editors. Also, did we get a spell checker all of a sudden? I'm noticing red underlines below misspelled words. (edit) It was just the version of FireFox. &mdash; Deckiller 21:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How hard is it to find who composed the music? Or anyone who worked on either graphics or sound? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that the only problem you have with the audio then? If that's the case, now that we have something hard to go by, I'll go ahead and fix that. &mdash; Deckiller 23:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Clean up the lead. 2x2 renditions of the Japanese titles is not in the least interesting to anyone other than aficionados. Hide it in a footnote. Squirrel it away further down in the article. Remove it altogether... Anything would be better than assaulting the reader with all that namingcruft in the very first sentence of the article. Peter Isotalo 20:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. It's sort of a standard to include the Japanese names in the first sentence for video games, but I agree that it's rather cumbersome in this situation.  Pagra shtak  13:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Why is the lead so heavily cited? This is not a controversial subject, in fact the lead shouldn't require any citations as it is a summary of the article. Quadzilla99 18:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * All except two of the first eleven references are used somewhere else, and it doesn't hurt to have references in the lead. The Placebo Effect 22:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. If there's no point in having the extra footnotes they should be removed. It just adds dinkiness. Peter Isotalo 20:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There's really no reason for the heavy citing in the lead, the most baffling one is the citing of the title of the article. I've never seen an article cite its title, I'm not even sure what that means. Are we citing the fact that we got the spelling correct? Am I missing something? Quadzilla99 02:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm removing the majority of them, I see what the first footnote is for now. Still awkward having a citation on the title, maybe all that can be mentioned in the body of the text somewhere. Quadzilla99 02:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's done. Looks a lot better, one problem though. This sentence "The games were released for use on the Nintendo Game Boy Color, but special features, such as additional items, are available when played on a Nintendo Game Boy Advance.[3]" contains a ref that's not repeated. That means either a) it's mentioned in the article, but cited in the lead and not the text which is backwards or b) it's not mentioned in the text and the lead introduces information that's not covered elsewhere. Either way it's wrong. I don't have enough interest in the subject to give this article a thorough review but it does look a lot better now, of course it would look great with zero citations in the lead. Quadzilla99 02:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment What can be shown to say that Seasons should come before Ages? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably because the Manga puts them in that order and the IGN review says that is the best order to play them through. The Placebo Effect
 * A good point! What the manga goes with is beside the point; while a licensed work, it's written in a language with completely different rules and traditions. In English, paired words are generally listed in the order that has the most pleasing sound (e.g. you don't say "women and men" or "gentlemen and ladies") and/or flows alphabetically, even if it contradicts the order of other pairings by doing so; while this isn't as cut-and-dried as "Jack and Jill" vs. "Jill and Jack", Google hits (despite being a questionable test) indicate a preference for "Ages and Seasons". Indeed, right now we have List of characters in The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages and Seasons; regardless of which is chosen, both articles must match. GarrettTalk 00:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you asking why Seasons comes before Ages in the article title? I chose that order because Tale of Power, which was adapted into Seasons, was the first game of the Triforce Trilogy.  Pagra shtak  00:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. It reads well and has references for almost everything, which is no easy task for games with such a confusing development history. Putting the Japanese names in a footnote wasn't ideal, but it does reduce the clutter in the lead. One thing the article doesn't cover that I think it could very briefly brush over is how each game has its own particular items (e.g. the seed shooter vs. the slingshot) which has an impact on gameplay (the slingshot cannot fire diagonally, but the seed shooter can) and further differentiates the gameplay of the two. But that's a very minor niggle, and one I only know about because I have played both games. Overall this article sets a good standard for video game articles. Most game articles don't have as confusing a history as this let alone attempt to cover two games on one page, and I think this article has definitely succeeded. GarrettTalk 00:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per above, I'm happy with the progression of the merged articles. -- Phoenix2  (talk, review) 16:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support igordebraga ≠ 22:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It still doesn't cover the fact that most of the equipment is present in both games, although some equipment is exclusive to only one game. Also, it lacks the lead composer of the game's music. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've clarified this, using the seed shooter and magnetic gloves as examples of game-specific equipment. In addition, I mentioned that there are two item slots available. As for the composer, I haven't seen anything to indicate that there was a lead composer. The sound is attributed to a company (Pure Sound Inc.), not a person; the article mentions the company as being responsible for the sound. If you find any evidence that one person is primarily responsible, as opposed to the collective group, I'd be more than happy to include that in the article.  Pagra shtak  13:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I must have glazed over that. However, all games have a most-important composer - I mean, look at TP and you see Kondo as being far more important than everyone else. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, the only involvement Koji Kondo has with these games are songs that were reused. Not every game has a lead composer.  Pagra shtak  19:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I was a big supporter last time, and there's absolutely no reason for me to change my mind. This is still a superb article. -- Kicking's back!... for this one edit. 22:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.