Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Final Fantasy XII

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:30, 31 March 2007.

Final Fantasy XII[edit]

Self-nom — hello again everybody. This article has been the result of a couple months of "chipping away" by no fewer than ten members of WikiProject Final Fantasy. It is the second most well-referenced Final Fantasy title article, as well as one of the most comprehensive. Hopefully, all that remains are minor issues that can be weeded out via this discussion (peer review yielded only one response, which was taken care of). Although there is another FA nom up for this WikiProject, it is more narrow in its contributors' scope, so it is not a major tax on our manpower, in my opinion.

The history of the article is a little complex, so I'll skip over that. If the rest of the team who worked on this article could co-nom below and add their comments, that would be great. As usual, the no spoiler tags for the plot section is part of the WP:FF's belief system since last year, and part of the compromise being struck on the project talk page. Images issues should be all set, so the issues should (hopefully) only come from the prose itself. Let the discussion begin, and thank you for taking the time to add your voice to this nomination. — Deckill er 23:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom and support, a lot of work went into this article and it's quite impressive. I, too, am hoping that this FAC will be a good opportunity to improve the article. If this passes, it will be the fasted turnover from release to FA status of any FF game so far. Axem Titanium 01:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Things...

The comma in the second sentence seems unnecessary (I might be wrong).

I'm a bit of a comma fan, so it doesn't really bother me. — Deckill er 02:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the serial comma the standard for this article? It jumps back and forth.

Yeah; that should be standardized. I've always found the serial comma more intelligent and professional and less old school, but that's just me :) — Deckill er 02:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should "Gambits" be capitalized?
Should "Summoning Magic" be capitalized?
Should "License" be capitalized?
a mysterious phenomenon known as "Mist" exists and is the key energy might sound better as a mysterious phenomenon known as "Mist" is the key energy or even a phenomenon known as "Mist" is the key energy.
Last sentence in the "Battle system" section seems awkward (again, I might be wrong). --- RockMFR 02:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm feeling a little sick right now (24 is really starting to make me frustrated, plus the brown bread), so I might not get to them quickly. — Deckill er 02:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I capitalized "Gambits" for now so it's uniform, and I reworded the mist part. Darth griz⁹⁸ 03:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a look at my game and decapitalized "summoning magic", "gambits" and "licenses" because they're common nouns. "License Board" remains because it is proper. Axem Titanium 13:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all issues have been addressed. Feel free to find as many as you can! Correcting fixable errors on FAC (except the nonsense 5MB source/spoiler tag/plot length debates) not only improves the article, but helps everyone spot these mistakes at a later date.— Deckill er 15:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You may want to double check your fair use rationales. It seems the ones of the screenshots are refering to cover art in a couple places, and I'm not sure what the intent of those lines was. Jay32183 19:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed what I saw. Anything else? Axem Titanium 23:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was the only problem I could find. So I support. Jay32183 03:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for your support. Axem Titanium 03:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ref for the "Square Enix Product Blog" bit at the very end of the article used to point to some blog source or some crap like that. That site referenced another site, which in turn referenced the SE blog. I've changed it to point directly to the original source, but I can't read Japanese. Someone with that skill should check to make sure the original blog actually says what we are saying it says, and maybe try to get an author name. --- RockMFR 05:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
During my edits, I updated the Game Rankings score, and in doing so, I noticed that FFXII has dropped to the fourth highest FF game, so I removed the bit about being second highest. It's not really noteworthy anymore, so you might want to move the Game Rankings score into the table and then merge the remaining stub paragraph up or down. --- RockMFR 05:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I wish my articles would look like that. Some random stuff I found:
- ..are complete and will be available soon - specific date?
  - Sorry, the ref doesn't give a specific date.
- "Final Fantasy XII US - fansite" and "Final Fantasy Wiki" - Remove per WP:EL as non-reliable websites. Done
- ..a special Final Fantasy XII package, which included - "which contained" would be better in this context. Done
- ..brand in Japan - ..Japanese brand. Done
- ..commercially available on March 7, 2006, in Japan - ..commercially available in Japan on March 7, 2006. Done
- No need in an English indicator for the second external link, as the first is the only non-English one. Done
- ..it was the fourth best-selling PlayStation 2 game of 2006 - was? Done
- ..most released and upcoming Final Fantasy games up to the newest releases - "up to the newest releases" redundant. Done
- Any references for the Japanese and Australian release dates? Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 16:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not a fan of including references in infoboxes, unless it's controversial, but I'll definitely find some to include elsewhere in the article.
    - I've interlaced the things I've tried to address within your comment above. If you have anything else to add, please do. Axem Titanium 21:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks good enough. It's impressible the polishing of FF pages (all of the main series are GA or FA...). igordebraga ≠ 21:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your support. Axem Titanium 03:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of lack of notability of the topic. 69.140.155.148 02:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a valid objection. All articles that come to FAC are assumed notable enough to avoid FAC being another AFD. Jay32183 03:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My sentiments exactly. That said, do you have any actionable objections? Axem Titanium 03:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If I remember correctly, IPs can't participate in these discussions anyway. — Deckill er 04:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - There's nothing in the rules up at the top of the page about it, IPs just never seem to make it to this page. (No vote, I want to play this game sometime so I'm not reading the article) --PresN 17:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well done, PresN. That's the kind of self-control I wish everyone had. Axem Titanium 21:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support after reading it over several times, it looks like FA material to me. Darth griz⁹⁸ 13:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Firm, well written prose with a multitude of interesting facts and a comprehensive, yet uncrufty treatment of the gameplay. My only objection is to the review table but as that's a personal preference, this nomination has my full support. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 20:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well written and easy to follow. It's about time this article joined all the other FA Final Fantasy articles. ZenSaohu 06:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.