Talk:Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children/GA2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reassessment of the article based on Wikipedia:Good article criteria:

1. Well-written:

a. Fail.

• The prose in Plot and Critical reception sections is far from clear. It often lacks cohesion and sometimes loses coherence. Both sections need extensive rewriting by an expert on the subject.
• Collocation is a major problem throughout the article. For example, we never "express pressure". We express concern, fear, discomfort, anxiety, etc. due to the pressure. People do not do something "due to" someone's order, but rather "on" someone's order.
• The Plot section makes no sense whatsoever to a layman who is far from being a devout fan of Final Fantasy VII series.
• The Plot section is still far from good, as it does not properly reveal the main theme/foundation of the story. (Read details below.) (Updated 15:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC))

b. Fail. The lead section is not a summary of the whole article; one cannot expect the article to perfectly do without it. Rather, the rest of the article depends on this section as a necessary prelude that introduces critical novel info. For instance, sections Audio, Voice casting and Music assume that the reader knows about the difference between "Advent Children" and "Advent Children Complete". This info is only available in the lead section, since Promotion and release section comes much later.

2. Factual accuracy and verifiability

a. OK

b. Fail. Factual accuracy of the Plot section, in multiple cases, is already contested in the article talk page, yet the section entirely lacks source. It is assumed that the source of the whole section is supposed to be the film itself, yet the section contains statements that fail verification by the film. Tags that identified the problems are removed without the controversy being resolved.

c. OK

3. Broad in its coverage

a. Not checked

b. Fail. Critical reception section strays into unnecessary details. The first paragraph need to be deleted after its relevant contents re-integrated into the rest of the article. Simple test: Give this paragraph to someone unfamiliar with the topic and tell him/her to choose a heading title for it. Critical reception will not be his/her choice 100% of the times. Unnecessary details that confuse the reader are commonly found across the article. (Updated 15:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC))

4. Neutral

Fail. Plot section does not introduce the story from a neutral point of view. More specifically, it is chiefly written from the point of view of a devout Final Fantasy VII fan who has spent his time absorbed in the franchise.

OK. (Updated 15:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC))

5. Stable

OK

6. Illustrated

Not checked. Article has a lot of difficult-to-understand aspects; perhaps images can help.

Codename Lisa (talk) 11:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Didn't you already point the plot issues in Talk:Final Fantasy VII Advent Children#Neutrality problem this month?Tintor2 (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Tintor2.

I am watching your edits and unfortunately, you are just changing the position of the problem, instead of fixing it. It makes no different whether you call it "director's cut" or "Advent Children Complete"; so long as the reader has no clue what it is, you have not solved any problem. Perhaps you should consider chronological consolidation of facts where applicable.

And please bear in mind that "Advent Children Complete" problem was just an example. To receive full mark, you should make sure that the reader knows about all other necessary stuff. Another example is Compilation of Final Fantasy.

And finally, yes, you have spotted the correct discussion; make sure you resolve all the issues mentioned in it, even those the were proven to be source issues and copyedit issues instead of neutrality issues.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm doing a little bit of work on this page to try to address some of these issues, so if you give me a day or two to get it done, that'd be great. One thing I would say though is regards the plot summary making sense to people who haven't played the game. I don't believe that's possible. The fact is that the film itself is impossible to follow unless one has at least a passing familiarity with the game. So for the plot to make sense to someone who knows nothing about the game, would require huge amounts of info about the game's plot. I know Square say the film stands alone, but it doesn't. The film assumes knowledge of the game's plot, so I don't think the plot summary could possibly work in such a way as to make sense to someone who doesn't know the game as well. If that makes any sense! I'll try to make it as clear as possible, but without going into detail on Sephiroth, Jenova, Hojo, Mako, the Lifestream etc, it's going to be very difficult. Bertaut (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Bertaut

Your efforts will be appreciated. But no one is asking you to make the plot section diamond-cut understandable; all that is required is that it should be written from a neutral point of view instead of a devout fan's point of view. (And I personally disagree that the film assume knowledge of the game – but we don't have to agree on this point to make this article GA worthy.) What should be done here is a formal translation: Make sure the article says what you see there in the film. You don't have to feel uncomfortable about people not knowing about, say, Sephiroth; a simple qualifier like "a dangerous supervillain" will do. You don't have to be uncomfortable about introducing Shinra and its history; it can be safely deleted. Article may even have an Overview and a Background section.

Perhaps it would have been best if I myself re-wrote the Plot section but I know that I should not.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Well, I'll give it a go. I don't know if I'll be able to do that much as I don't have a huge amount of time to devote to it, and I've actually never worked on an article undergoing reassessment before, but I'll certainly see what I can do. I'm actually doing some tidy up work on all Final Fantasy VII related articles at the moment. Anyhow, I should post my edits in a day or two. Friday at the absolute latest. Bertaut (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi gentlemen. Okay so, I found myself with a few unexpected free hours yesterday, and was able to get this done quicker than I anticipated. I've tried to address as many of the issues raised as I could, but whether or not I've done enough remains to be seen. I don't know. To explain a couple of things I've done - the troublesome first paragraph in the "Critical reception" section, I moved to a new "Legacy" section. It contains some interesting info, and I don't think it should just be removed. I've tried to fix up the plot section as best I could; I've added a couple of references and tried to give some minimal backstory, as well as fixing up the prose and some grammatical issues. I also rearranged the "Development" section to try to make it read like one continual piece, as opposed to a series of snippets. A couple of things I haven't addressed are the opening section, as I think it's fine as it is (and I'm not sure what you mean when you say the rest of the article doesn't make sense without it); the issue of Loz and Yazoo being caught in an explosion which you mention on the talk page (I don't see where the problem with this is - Reno and Rude leave a bomb on the road, and Loz and Yazoo are caught in the blast); I haven't given a blow by blow account of the battle between Sephiorth and Cloud, because as Tintor2 points out, that's not the purpose of a summary section, it's sufficient to simply say that Cloud defeats Sephiroth. Anyhow, there you go, I've done what I can, so let's see where we stand now. Bertaut (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Bertaut

Well done. You have done an excellent job. I reviewed your edit and updated the assessment. In addition, I included a more detailed review below.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Detailed review 1

Lead

• 'Science fiction film'
  • Not a science fiction film; it is a fantasy film. It certainly has supernatural themes like life beyond death, power of the spirits/dead, etc.
• '...first title announced in the Compilation of Final Fantasy VII series, although it was the second title released, after the mobile phone game Before Crisis: Final Fantasy VII.'
  • Early bombardment of reader with potentially unknown info.
  • Sources are not allowed in the lead. Add references to the body prose, where they are once again covered.
• 'Cloud ... is summoned to find the cause of "Geostigma"'
  • Citation need; not found in the body.
• 'The film received mostly mixed reviews'
  • 'Mostly' must be deleted. 'Mixed', when used for a review, is neutral (middle ground) adjective. One thing cannot be mostly on the middle of a scale. (But it can be almost in the middle.)

Plot

• Paragraph 1
  • Unnecessary details about the events of Final Fantasy VII. Article will do perfectly without them. There is no need to bombard the already confused viewer with more confusing things like "Holy". Just mention that two years has passed since the events of Final Fantasy VII that culminated in the fall of Sephiroth, a supervillain of immense power.
  • Bad introduction of Tifa, Cloud, Denzel and Marlene. Simply introduce them the way you introduce any film character whose film does not have a prequel. Denzel and Marlene have minor roles and therefore should receive only due amounts of attention.
• Paragraph 2
  • Unnecessary details without source. Everything about Shinra, Turks, their past status and Sephiroth's considering himself Jenova's child needs source. Please focus on what they actually are in the film and do not be too hasty to give a supervillain an excuse to justify his being evil. Just introduce Rufus Shinra as you would introduce any antihero or auxiliary character in any film without a prequel.
• Paragraph 3
  • Paragraph desperately needs a topic sentence.
  • Sephiroth summoned Meteor from the Forgotten City? Citation needed.
  • Unnecessary details again. Why "Forgotten City" is mentioned at all? The past history of the Forgotten City is not relevant in this film.
  • Missing details: At this point we are at the apex of the film, a turning point in which Cloud significantly changes. Before this point, he lost all battles and after this point, he is simply unstoppable. I don't know why but I suspect that woman in red jacket and "forgiveness" both have something to do with. I think this is the place where elaboration is needed.
• Paragraph 4
  • Do not chronologically intertwine the Bahamut's fight and the revelation of mother's location. While it is suitable for film, it is not suitable for an article.
  • "...not before Rufus shoots and damages it." Grammar.
  • "...who had survived the explosion." Grammar.
  • "...over 2,000 years previously." Grammar: Adverb of time must modify the verb not another adverb of time. Consider either "...previously for over 2,000 years" or "...2,000 years before". Source: 2,000 year needs source.
  • "After a prolonged battle in Midgar..." The battle is plot-wise important; Cloud once again changes significantly during the battle. Explain how he was fighting a losing battle and why the tide suddenly turned.
• General overview
  • Different parts of the film with equal importance do not receive equal coverage. The early parts of the film is overexplained while the late parts are underexplained. Overall, the important underlying foundation of the film is not well explained: "Survival" and "guilt and regret". (See Production section for source.) Correct me if I am wrong but Cloud overcame guilt and regret in the Forgotten City and resolved survival in his battle against Sephiroth, where he realized that although this life sucks, he cherishes everything about it. The plot section must explain these. The rest of the film is just pure visual appeal.
  • Nothing about Advent Children Complete is said.

Production

• "Compilation of Final Fantasy" and "Before Crisis" both need to be wikilinked.
• This is a personal opinion and I will not hold it against the article if not resolved, but I think comments on "Compilation of Final Fantasy", "Before Crisis" and "Kingdom Hearts" seem not immediately relevant. Just mention that the film's focus was Cloud and Tifa and that Takeshi Nozue and Tetsuya Nomura have previously worked together.
• Nothing about Advent Children Complete is said.

Voice casting

• "The English release of the director's cut retained most of the original voice cast."
  • First mention of a director's cut without a prior introduction except in the lead section. Not good.
  • Which voice actor is changed?
  • The first instance of "director's cut" in the main prose must be wikilinked. (Lead is not part of the main prose.)

Music

• The director's cut (Advent Children Complete) is once again mentioned without any previous introduction in the main prose.

Codename Lisa (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.