Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask/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 kept by Dana boomer 23:09, 20 August 2010 [1].

The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask

Review commentary

WP Video games, WP Nintendo and User talk:Pagrashtak notified

I can't find the WP Video games notification-- where is it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now archived at [2] Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it passes 1c without no refs in the entire Plot and Synopsis sections. I don't see the need of the second paragraph of Settings and I think is too long.
Image File:Zora.JPG is not really needed, Link with a mask on it would be better. Also the size is fine but the resolution could be better.
The text is choppy in some places.
I don't think it is needed to describe Termina full-detailed. In other Zelda articles there's not such a thing.
Ref 38 url goes to Famitsu.com, not the actual site, and does not say the number of the publication.
Not all refs say Retrieved on...
There are links in this article with broken #section.
I will add citation needed.

I think other articles in the series are much better. OboeCrack (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note about the plot; plot sections can usually be sourced to the work itself. Many GAs and FAs don't use footnotes in the plot section since it's implied that the work itself is being used as the source for the plot. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Remove~~ - Large quantities of the Synopsis and Gameplay are un-sourced. Somebody might can look at old revisions to see if some references were removed, that can be reused. Although, all the revisions where it was premoted/reviewed, there were no sources for that content. So I doubt it exists. Unless those sections get rewritten and sourced, I don't think it is good enough for GA, let alone FA. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As TenPoundHammer points out, generally in articles like this it is assumed that the work itself is being cited, so that's why there are no citations (it would be different if we were talking about Majora's Mask in another article, for example.) Quality of images is not an issue for FA status; whether that image meets WP:NFCC is. If you're going to delist on prose, you're going to have to point out actionable examples. Really, this could have been done on the talk page, but... *sigh* This isn't an up-or-down vote, the point is to improve articles before carting them here and/or delisting them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't see that. The review was posted on the wrong page, so I commented where the link on the talkpage took me. I guess I agree. The plot and maybe gameplay can be sourced by the actual game. I remove my vote, which is apparently not how FAR's work. If it does get improved with the comments posted here(such as the Famitsu link), then I guess it is fine. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do agree with the nominator that FAs are supposed to be Wikipedia's best content, and this doesn't really seem like we gave it our all. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The [citation needed]s are of concern, and I see a few two-sentence paragraphs. Also I'm concerned about comprehensiveness, since about half the refs are from IGN. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give me something actionable on the comprehensive comment? What specifically is missing from this article that makes it not comprehensive? 1(b) says nothing about having too many references from one publisher. Pagra shtak 15:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, it really just needs a stiff copyedit after some expansion. I think given the amount of time that has passed we can find more content about its development and reception. The synopsis section could also probably be tightened, I'll try to get to it when I can. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've started trimming the synopsis section. It needs to be more accessible to non-players; I think moving the gameplay section before it might make more sense, what do others think? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Considering most games have the gameplay section before the plot, I agree. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've put some work in, mostly to references and links. I'll work on the other problems as I have time. If there are any more ref issues, let me know or mark them and I'll see what I can do. What was the problem with Zora.JPG exactly? Pagra shtak 02:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern are prose, comprehensiveness, sourcing YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - per this comment, David does not have the time to work further on this article at this time. Dana boomer (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hold Pagrashtak has put some work into the article since then. I'll ping David. --mav (reviews needed) 13:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not really going to have time to take a detailed look at this until later in the week (holidays and travel.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per criterion three:
- ~~File:Majora's Mask image.png - Same as above.~~ Эlcobbola _talk 12:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I've been away too long. ZeldaMMbox.jpg looks like it has both a source and rationale. Can you be more specific about what is lacking? Pagra shtak 20:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's unclear. To use File:ZeldaMMbox.jpg as an example: It needs a source. The only non-rationale text is "The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask boxcover. Copyright Nintendo, 2000", which is a description of the image - not a source. Who took the photo? What website is it from? See WP:IUP/NFCC#6/NFCC#10A. It needs a "specific and detailed rationale" - not just a rationale. "It is used to represent a well known and significant video game" is neither detailed nor specific. Represent what aspect(s)? Why is that representation important? (I'm not saying it isn't; I'm saying it needs to be articulated). Эlcobbola _talk 19:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source is Nintendo (as stated), who holds the copyright from its publication in 2000. Does it matter if I got it directly from one of Nintendo's websites or from Amazon? That doesn't have any impact on the copyright status. I revised the rationale on the first image. If it's acceptable I'll do the second. Pagra shtak 05:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and redid the second image as well. I don't know who took the screenshot, but it should be a moot point as the copyright is held by Nintendo regardless. Please let me know how the rationales stand. Pagra shtak 04:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~It's not a moot point - the source of an image is very important. If you can't find the source, then remove the image and take a shot yourself or similar.~~ Ryan Norton 01:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said the source of an image isn't important, please don't put words in my mouth. This image has been removed from the article. Pagra shtak 01:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "Nintendo" is not a verifiable source - it's a publisher. It's akin to using "Weblogs, Inc." instead of "Fletcher, JC (2009-04-07). "VC/WiiWare Tuesday: Majora's Mask arrives in another region". www.joystiq.com. Weblogs, Inc."; the former would not be acceptable. The source does more than confirm copyright status; it allows a non-"expert" reader to verify the authorship information provided, to verify provenience (e.g. that it's the cover used in a given market, not a fan interpretation), etc. To that end, any verifiable source that accomplishes that (e.g. an Amazon product page) would be sufficient. Эlcobbola _talk 12:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Nintendo is more than just the publisher in this case. Per my comment to Ryan Norton below, the Image use policy (by use of the word "or") seems to indicate that giving the copyright holder is sufficient. In any event, I have added a link to allow the reader to verify the authenticity of the image. Do you have a response to the image use policy regarding screenshots? The policy regarding source says "For screenshots this means what the image is a screenshot of", which the removed screenshot states clearly. I feel like you're asking for more than is required by policy. Pagra shtak 15:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last edit is from 21. July. Where is the link? The relevant part of policy is the requirement: "Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified". The "or" verbiage is in regards to the summary, which is a different element; note that even that section says "provide specific details about the image's origin". For what it's worth, WP:IUP is indeed terribly written; this, I think, is a more accessible distillation. Эlcobbola _talk 10:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, I must have not saved. It's there now. Pagra shtak 21:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, image issues resolved. Эlcobbola _talk 21:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The general policy is a bit messy. Wikipedia:Non-free_content in particular WP:NFCC#10A has the more correct version however. "Identification of the source of the material supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder" The real problem is the "source" explanation at WP:IUP can be a bit misleading. Ryan Norton 09:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How is work going on this? It looks like not much has really been happening on the article... Feel free to ping the reviewers who have commented above when you feel you have addressed their concerns. As one of the two oldest nominations on this page, this should be progressing! Dana boomer (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There appears to be some confusion on the work vs. publisher on a lot of the refs (I made an edit as an example - all the GameSpot ones are wrong as well - GameSpot is the _work_, CBS Interactive is the publisher - another example). Also, several print magazine refs appear to be missing page numbers. Ryan Norton 06:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist until the image source concerns raised above are addressed. "From a video game fan listing website" does not qualify as a source. Ryan Norton 01:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that "From a video game fan listing website" does not qualify as a source—in fact, no one on this page has made that claim. The image is no longer in the article. Pagra shtak 01:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Fair enough, but there's still no source for the box image either.~~ Ryan Norton 04:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the strikes. I'm confused with this source discussion. Going back to the screenshot that I removed—the image page says "Screenshot from The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask" and "Copyright Nintendo". Wikipedia's Image use policy states this regarding image sources: "Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified. Examples include scanning a paper copy, or a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer. For screenshots this means what the image is a screenshot of (the more detail the better). Do not put credits in images themselves." (emphasis mine) File:Majora's Mask image.png is indeed a screenshot, and the image description page says what the image is a screenshot of. This seems to satisfy the policy for image source. Later in the policy, it states "Source: The copyright holder of the image or URL of the web page the image came from" (emphasis mine on "or"). In both images, the copyright holder is clearly stated. I feel like these images are in compliance with my reading of the policy. What am I missing? Pagra shtak 06:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are correct, it does appear to pass the wording of the general image use policy (although not fair use). Also, apologies if my earlier comment offended you; thanks for improving the work/publisher stuff as well (BTW for future reference you can just say GameSpot instead of www.gamespot.com for example but technically either is correct) - all is left is the page numbers, but I'm not going to object on that myself. Ryan Norton 06:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the input, no offense taken. Pagra shtak 15:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delist - Looking through the article, I have seen sourcing problems. The main sourcing problems are no references in the first paragraph in the "Gameplay" section; as well as some parts in "Masks and transformations". Also, I saw comprehensive problems in the "Music" section because of it not having enough info as it should have, like its soundrack article. GamerPro64 (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The sourcing of the "Gameplay" section (which includes the "Masks and transformations" section) was brought up and answered during the pre-FARC review above. As to the "Music" section, please tell me more specifically what is missing. Pagra shtak 15:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, it should have the track listings from the soundtrack, like in Halo Wars. As well as some more infomation in the section about the music in the game. GamerPro64 (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It sounds to me like you're actually asking for a merge, since the soundtrack article is little more than a track listing. The track list works in the Halo Wars article, where there are only 25 tracks. Majora's Mask has 112 and I feel that the track list would overwhelm the article. Do the other reviewers have any comment on this? Pagra shtak 21:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've expanded the Music section some. If you have anything specific you would like added, please let me know. You didn't mention the Gameplay sourcing after my reply—just to be clear, do you consider that part resolved? Pagra shtak 22:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I believe that the Gameplay section problem is resolved. I have striked out my Delist, though I don't know if I should should say keep. GamerPro64 (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, I am seeing some improvements to the article, however, I can't support keeping it. JJ98 (talk) 06:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per FAR instructions, your declaration should be "supported by substantive comments". As it stands, you have given me nothing actionable to be able to reverse your decision. Pagra shtak 21:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. JJ98 (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article has improved significantly so far. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient improvements made. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 14:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.