Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Final Fantasy III/1

Final Fantasy III

 * • Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: Delist FightingStreet (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have looked over this article, and have found it does not qualify for GA status in that the article is not broad in its coverage:
 * Although it is reasonable to limit the scope of an article's Plot section, the arguments of Spoiler allow for a much more comprehensive coverage of the plot as a result of Wikipeida's encyclopedic nature, and every other FF article contains a much more detailed Plot which describes the events of its respective game.
 * The article completely lacks a reception or legacy section. This may be undestandable becuase of the game's early release and/or general general obscurity, but the Lead statement "was one of the largest role-playing games created for Nintendo's console" implies that there exists information on the subject.

I find it important to note that the article Final Fantasy III is part of a Featured Topic, and therefore deserves and requires that it is a GA in nature and not simply in name. --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The plot is usually the less important part of these articles, today most reviewers prefer to have more "out of universe" than content dealing with the fictional material, personally I would like to see a 'reception' section. For a issue like "needing a more extensive plot" bringing it to reassessment without actually leaving a note in the talk page or other venue in order to discuss it seems premature. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  08:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. The article needs to have more information on out-of-universe relevence, ie, reception in the real world. I recommend creating an appropriate section. In its current state the article doesn't comply with NOTPLOT, thus failing criterion 3. Majoreditor (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delist. The article now has a section entitled "Reception". However, the section is completely devoid of content - not a word. There's also some fact tags in the article. It's clearly not GA-class at present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majoreditor (talk • contribs) 19:46, 28 February 2008.


 * Delist. Reception section is empty; the article is not broad in its coverage (GA criterion 3). FightingStreet (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delist Development seems skimpy. Reception is blank. Some fact tags. Some stuff could use citations. What's up with the weird blank spaces, btw? Ealdgyth | Talk 02:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)