Wikipedia:Featured article review/Final Fantasy IV/archive1

Final Fantasy IV

 * Criterion (3); excessive non-free images. Overarching policy is WP:NFCC. Most, if not all, of the box art and screenshot images fail WP:NFCC (replaceability) and/or WP:NFCC (significance and understanding).  BKNFCC  22:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Projects notified: WikiProject Video games, WikiProject Final Fantasy.
 * ...That's it? This is an issue for the talk page, as it can be debated and we can come to an understanding about it. FAR is for article issues that require major attention, just so you know. So which images are not within fair use in your opinion? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I second Judgesurreal777's comment. There's nothing wrong with FARs, but in this case it's a bit curious to engage a three-week-long process just for a minor issue that will be resolved in, like, one day or less. Please specify which images you believe are excessive. I see one which should be replaced or removed, Image:FFIVDS.JPG, due to the watermark. Kariteh (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No - if it had been one or two images, then I agree that the talkpage is the best place for this. But I don't see that any of the box art or screenshot images actually pass WP:NFCC - they're just decorative.  Since I would simply be reverted if I was bold and removed them, and I didn't particularly want to deface a featured article with a  copyright tag, then here we are.  Incidentally, Final Fantasy VI, another featured article, has the same problems.  BKNFCC  11:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are a lot of excessive fair use images, but the box art is in no way excessive. If having box art in VG articles is an issue, it shouldn't be discussed here; it should be discussed on the VG project talk page. The procedure of removing box art from articles should be the same for all VG articles, not just FFIV and FFVI, or whatever. The Prince (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Black Kite is referring to the extra box arts, i.e. those of the re-releases, not the main one in the infobox. It's a valid point and I've removed those. Now the article might need a few cosmetic adjustments, since most of the remaining images are concentrated in the first half of the article. But apart from this minor stuff and the watermark remaining in the DS version image, I think this review will be resolved quickly. Kariteh (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my bad. The Prince (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)