Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Final Fantasy IV

Final Fantasy IV

Article is nearing FA. The text will soon be polished (I'm looking at you, interested reader). We need help citing two things:

Changes in the WonderSwan version
Special faceplate for GB Micro released with GBA FF4 in Japan

Suggestions and advice? --Zeality 03:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering I rewrote the ENTIRE story section and did a lot of polishing elsewhere in the article, I don't know how much help I can be in that aspect. I did some research into the Wonderswan version but came up empty handed. Sir Crazyswordsman 06:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding anything for the WSC either. I'm going to track down who added that information. --Zeality 20:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is minor stuff, but I notice a few of the refs read "Retrieved on 12 October 2006, 2006 [sic]". When you use the accessdate parameter of cite web, the accessyear parameter should be absent. The dates of refs use several different formats: I see YYYY-MM-DD; month DD, YYYY; and month DDth, YYYY (the latter of which is contrary to the MOS). I personally prefer [[YYYY-MM-DD]] (with the link to format) when I write ref dates, but the "th" should be removed at a minimum.

More important stuff:

Shouldn't the "Versions and rereleases" section fall under Development?
The development section only has one reference currently.
I struggle with those multiple infoboxes every time I review this article; it will probably come up on FAC.

Pagra shtak 21:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should take the infoboxes out and put that stuff in the prose. Zeality, tell me what you thing about that. Sir Crazyswordsman 21:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that whoever referenced the article earlier didn't perfect the formatting, so I'll correct that. Merging those sections should be good. I want to move the graphics thing to gameplay, since it falls under actual playing (and it's not development history or something like that). Presently, all that development information does come from that one source. As for the infoboxes...Chrono Trigger managed to get away with a similar situation, though it only had 3 (versus 5). We can see how they fare in FAC, since we'll have a lot of editors commenting on the article there. --Zeality 15:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The prose still has some microissues; I've ironed some of these out, but it might see some nitpicking at FAC. — Deckill e r 18:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]