Wikipedia:Featured article review/Final Fantasy VII/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 19:35, 4 May 2008.

Review commentary

 * WikiProject Final Fantasy, WikiProject Video games, WikiProject Square Enix, User talk:Arrowned, User talk:Sjones23, User talk:Axem Titanium, User talk:Deckiller‎ notified.

The article was featured two years ago, and I think it doesn't meet the criteria anymore. The article fails the following FA criteria:
 * 1.(a) and 4. The article is too long, especially due to the Story section and the Development section. The information should either be split into subarticles or re-written in a more concise, more efficient style. When something new is added to the article, it is often added hastily without regards to the article's prose and coherence: in fact, hardly any copyediting has been done since the article's initial FA nomination two years ago.
 * 1.(b) The Development section and the Merchandise section have been tagged with Update templates since apparently half a year. They are incomplete as pointed out in the article's talk page and todolist.
 * 1.(c) There is a [citation needed] tag in the Development section and the following sources don't qualify as reliable sources:         . However, while these sources are not considered "reliable" by Wikipedia policies, most of them are actually fansites hosting transcripts of interviews from official sources, so efforts should be done to locate these official sources and cite them directly instead of citing the fansites.
 * 2.(c) Several sources are not properly written, and some are dead links.
 * 3 Image:FF7 Pic 3.jpg and Image:FF7 Pic 4.jpg don't seem to be absolutely necessary in the article; ordinary sentences would be enough to convey their information. FightingStreet (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The story section can't be split because of WP:PLOT. Jay32183 (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * [4] could be replaced with a reference to "PlayStation Underground #2 demo CD". If you do find the right issue [7] was taken from, I think it would still be best to link to that website for the transcript. It's a lot easier to check an already translated interview than having to hunt down the specific issue and then finding someone to translate for you (if you don't know Japanese that is). Davhorn (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I will get to work on this when I get the chance :)  Greg  Jones   II  16:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delist per the concerns in the nomination. --Haemo (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delist: Plot is waaay to long, wiki banners all over the article, messy organization, and 0 progress since this evaluation was initiated. -- Noj r (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Development section has been Updated as requested by the Update tag. It was a short paragraph on the original draft of the game's plot. &mdash; Blue. 04:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), referencing (1c), and images (3). Marskell (talk) 10:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Closing. The needed facelift doesn't seem to have arrived. Removing. Marskell (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - This article was authored by those in WP:VG of the school of thought that role-playing games deserve comprehensive plot sections to satisfy 1b, and often have detailed, complex plots. If an up to date standard of comparison is needed, Chrono Trigger hit the main page yesterday. ZeaLitY [  DREAM  -  REFLECT  ]  01:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - It seems most of the actionable advice here is generally superficial upkeep; if someone has the time to give the article a facelift, then I don't see why it shouldn't be kept. &mdash; Deckiller 23:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove - There seems to be quite a bit of sourced material in the lead when the lead should be summarizing the article. Why are those items there and not in the article proper? Or if in the article proper, why the sourcing in the lead? There also seem to be some unreferenced statements peppered throughout the article. Setting seems lengthy when it already has an entire article. The article section arrangements seem to need work. Why two sections named plot?  The plot section itself (#2) is way too long and needs some serious trimming. I love the game as much as anyone, but that's too much plot and really unnecessary. It should be a summary, not a nearly scene-by-scene. The article also has several maintenance tags that have been in place far too long for a featured article. And as none fo the issues from the first part appear to have been addressed, with the same non-RS sources still in the article. Collectonian (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - This article needs to be fixed up as soon as possible. If FFVII's FA status is removed, we can renominate it at any time when its ready.  Greg  Jones   II  21:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.