Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Final Fantasy VIII

Final Fantasy VIII

I believe this article is FA-worthy. First, it is comprehensive because it covers the major points of the gameplay, story arcs, setting, criticism, development, and so on. Second, it has been the target of numerous copyedits from four or five different editors (and one or two other good copyeditors did absolutely nothing to this article, which either sends us a false message or shows that it's fine). Third, the story section is balanced in that it covers all major story arcs without having to go into excess detail on the main article (or a parent article, for that matter). Additionally, the article has been surprisingly stable outside of the major edits by Ryu, myself, and several others. Sure, it gets the occasional fansite and a "cruft" injection every now and then, but it has shown stability even after the major editing push concluded. The pictures portray a well-rounded visual of the game, and the captions are succinct.

I know that some of you will have issues with the length, which is actually secondary to comprehensiveness. The length is 41 KB, which is significantly less than some other game articles. We tried to strike a compromise between inclusonism and deletionism here, and we hope you can understand that we editors go through a lot of stress trying to play monkey in the middle. So, I ask you, look at the content and the prose, not the superficial stuff. If this nomination turns into an inclusion/deletion battlefield, it will be withdrawn, because the editors of this article do not believe in tailoring the article to meet someone's personal beliefs and opinions — stuff that is not clearly stated in the criteria. In other words, please keep your objections and supports based on the criteria, and not wikiphilosophy. This is absolutely nothing against any user or group of users; we just want to nip this in the bud. Thank you, and let the nomination begin! — Deckill e r 01:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination/Strong Support: Like Deckiller, I've been one of this article's dedicated editors. Together the two of us — and a few other skilled copyeditors who have offered input — have attempted to make the article cover all major aspects of the game and its notable relations, as well as ensure that it covers the storyline's major arcs while remaining concise.

I'd also like to second Deckiller's request that the focus of comments be on the criteria for FA and the content of the article rather than any wikiphilosophy related to length. It's very trying for us as editors to be caught in a war between opposing philosophies seeking to make an article they didn't personally work on be the example of their standard. We believe that as the article stands, it is a fair compromise to both schools of thought. While touching on the major story arcs and their resolutions, it doesn't go into exhaustive detail on every sub-plot; however, while being succinct, it also doesn't cater to a "one size fits all" ideal with regard to length. There is no one size fits all, for not all plots are the same size. These matters should always be examined on a case-by-case basis, and I respectfully ask that this be done here. Ryu Kaze 01:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will say I have been following the article for a while and the editors have done an outstanding job :). If it isn't a FA right now, it is awfully close... RN 02:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comment! — Deckill e r 05:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic article - one of the most comprehensive and informative (relatively speaking) I've seen in a FAC nomination in a long while. Kudos to the main editors Wisdom89 05:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks! — Deckill e r 05:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you, Wisdom89. Ryu Kaze 12:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some recent issues have been addressed regarding images and image boxes, but there are previously settled debates, so it's not exactly a stability issue per se. — Deckill e r 06:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Object~~ for now. Too glitchy. -Silence 12:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not getting any glitch with regards to the first image, and the second one isn't happening now. It just appears to have been something random, and hardly reflects the quality of the article itself. Ryu Kaze 13:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - As you can see here, there's no glitch with the Gameplay section. Ryu Kaze 13:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I must say that the standard of writing is a definite cut above that of similar FACs, and sets a new benchmark. I've made several minor changes to the first half, plus one inline query. The rest could do with just a few microfixes. Tony 13:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I'll see if I can make any adjustments elsewhere along the lines of yours. Ryu Kaze 13:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks. Ryu and myself balanced off some of the minor issues in the story section. — Deckill e r 15:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This really is a well-written article, although I'm sure finishing touches here and there could make it a bit better. The only problem I have - the fact that the gameplay section isn't very aesthetically pleasing at the moment - doesn't factor into the FAC process. I definitely liked the battle image in its previous position (at the end of the Limit Breaks section), and it wasn't the "glitchy" image in question as far as I know. --Tristam 20:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your kind, yet constructive words. — Deckill e r 02:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see why not. Meets all the standards of FA -ScotchMB 23:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your support! — Deckill e r 02:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support—With such glowing support from Tony, one hardly even needs to read the article to make sure it's readable. But it is; I checked. And it's about as well referenced as one of these articles can be. So yeah, I support. Nice work. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 03:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot! — Deckill e r 03:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Deckiller and Ryu have worked hard on this and they should be rewarded. Crazyswordsman 03:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks. I'm sure FF6 is right around the corner, as well :-) — Deckill e r 03:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good content, nicely balanced information, informative and not excessive, nice job guys. Darthgriz 9 8 03:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks :) — Deckill e r 03:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — today's changes were geared toward adding a few references to the gameplay section for safety reasons. — Deckill e r 03:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I also added a few "games" and "the players" into the story section to give it a more fictional feel. That should be good enough for the section. — Deckill e r 04:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks to everyone who has offered support and constructive advice. Ryu Kaze 12:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Heh...another great FF article! Thunderbrand 14:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! Ryu Kaze 14:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ^_^ Thanks! — Deckill e r 15:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Very well wrote...deserves a spot in the FA! Dspradau 14:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot! — Deckill e r 15:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, excellent article. Well done! :) - Mailer Diablo 19:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! ;) — Deckill e r 19:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seconding Deckiller's thanks to you folks. Ryu Kaze 20:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Truly Amazing to see how this article has evolved in the past year. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 21:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comment; hopefully, the rest of the FF articles can reach the same level. — Deckill e r 02:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This article is of a quality similar to Final Fantasy X. I rejected the nomination for FF VII, but I think this is much better. Congrats! --Sean WI 22:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much, guys. Ryu Kaze 23:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ^_^ Your comments and supports mean a lot of us; it's a dividend and reward. — Deckill e r 02:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you go through the account of the story and fix the tone where it becomes overly informal, e.g., "That's the current status. Now onto the mission objective."? How do you negotiate to apologise? Tony 13:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The mission objective example is from one of the citations. I'll give the section a runthrough once I get home from work tonight, though. — Deckill e r 13:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like FFVI, this article is good, even someone who didn't play the game like me can follow it easily Renmiri 01:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your support. ^_^ Ryu Kaze 01:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Rem; that's exactly what we were hoping, that the article can be easily followed :) — Deckill e r 03:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Never played (but I have some interest), but the article is fantastic, and richly illustrated. igordebraga ≠ 15:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much. It's comments like yours and Renmiri's that tell us we did a good job. If somebody who has never played the game can follow the article or finds it interesting, that makes me feel proud of it. Ryu Kaze 19:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looking good. Definitely one of the better written examples of CVG coverage on Wikipedia, and richly deserving the status of featured article. – Seancdaug 20:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Ryu Kaze 21:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks, Sean. — Deckill e r 02:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great job on this article, and it looks like it's sailing through to FA status. --PresN 03:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support - add spoiler tags. Would it really harm the article to add spoiler tags to the plot? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to both of you for the support. Concerning spoiler tags, as mentioned on Final Fantasy VI's FAC, they're both redundant of the site-wide content notice and our purpose as an encyclopedia, and in this particular case, entirely unnecessary given that the spoilers are in a section marked "Plot". Why place a banner under "Plot" that says "Plot details follow"? That's obvious. Ryu Kaze 13:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still would like it if there was spoiler tags for peoples' convenience. And how would it interupt the flow of the article anymore than the header does? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - On the matter of convenience, how are they more convenient than the "Plot" header which can be clicked on from the table of contents, and says the same thing the more long-winded banner does? As for flow, they're redundant because the section is already entitled "Plot". Additionally, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, defined as a comprehensive body of information, and includes an encyclopedia-wide notice of spoiler content already. Even these latter two matters aside, it's already obvious that a section entitled "Plot" will contain plot details. That's what it's there for. Ryu Kaze 04:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay guys, the Spoiler RfC is that way. :-) — Deckill e r 04:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm always impressed with the Final Fantasy article authors. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Ryu Kaze 13:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks :) — Deckill e r 13:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Beautiful article, well referenced. Combination 22:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Gracias :) (going into other languages now!). — Deckill e r 22:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Arigatou (continuing the other languages thing)! Ryu Kaze 00:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]