Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Squall Leonhart/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 archived by

talk) 06:25, 5 September 2014 (diff
).

Squall Leonhart

Nominator(s): Bailo26 19:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the fictional protaganist of the game

Sony Playstation. All references are working, the article has been Copy-edited and Peer reviewed. It was given GA status in 2006. I believe that since then sufficient improvement has been made to bring it up to FA status. Bailo26 19:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Regarding the removal of his height, I argue that since his height is noted in some video game books concerning him, including ones focusing on his character creation, and has been debated on the article talk page, we should keep it noted in the article. Judging by that debate on the talk page, someone will re-add his height if we don't leave it in, and having that sourced addition of his height in the article is better than someone coming along and adding an unsourced addition of it. Yes, we could revert that person, but then that might lead to another talk page debate about his height. We can also look to the Wikipedia articles of other
talk) 11:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
After reading through the talk pages more thoroughly and reading Flyer his point my opinion on it has changed. Its better to keep it in to prevent later edit warring and to have it unsourced. Kudos on your clean up job with the citations. The article in my opinion looks a lot better now. I would now vote support but by wikipedia's guidelines, this being my first review and all I will just keep it to comments. NathanWubs (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reconsidering, NathanWubs. I'm female, by the way.
talk) 07:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
My apologizes for that Flyer22. Also apologizes in advance as I might forget that detail in the future. NathanWubs (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Height has been re-added. Bailo26 23:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dank

  • "On the Ragnarok late in the game,": ?
  • "while his comrades are pulled back from time compression into their places in the timeline": ?
  • "Squall takes the name Leon because "Squall" was shamed for not protecting those he loved from the Heartless when his home world (the Radiant Garden) was consumed by darkness": Are we talking about two people named "Squall"? If not, why not say "Squall takes the name Leon as an alias, because he was shamed ..."?
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All Issues dealt with.

  • Clarified Ragnarok as an airship
  • Removed the reference to time compression as it is a very hard concept to explain.
  • Corrected the Leon sentence as suggested.

Bailo26 12:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks. What does "while his comrades are pulled back into their places in the timeline" mean? - Dank (push to talk) 13:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding that bit, from what I remember of the game, Ultimecia has power to influence time, which she uses against her enemies and for other purposes; if that is not already made clear in the plot information, it should be; we shouldn't simply remove all mention of this power aspect.
talk) 13:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I just Googled her; see this Wikia entry about her character.
talk) 13:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
How about: "After defeating Ultimecia, the time and space that she absorbed to begins to return to normal, pulling Squalls comrades back into their places in the timeline, while Squall...". This way we are still keeping the power mentioned. Bailo26 13:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion; that works for me.
talk) 13:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Done! Bailo26 13:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedited to "After Ultimecia is defeated, the time and space that she absorbed begin to return to normal, pulling Squall's ...". Okay, that's all my points, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 14:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just fixed my awful fix. - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 21:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, something I forgot! You should archive the 1Up references. The site isn't working properly anymore. Conversation on the subject here. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Thanks for pointing that out! Bailo26 01:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, why is the Dissidea storyline not included and the brief Kingdom Hearts storyline not even outlined? Missing Theatrhythm Final Fantasy: Curtain Call and Pictlogica Final Fantasy mentions from appearances. Final Fantasy Trading Card Game should be worth a mention at least.... Also, Final Fantasy Airborne Brigade and 'Final Fantasy Record Keeper and Final Fantasy Artniks while you are doing those. While a premium character, he does exist in 'Final Fantasy All the Bravest. Should be easy to get "comprehensive" requirement, right? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, okay, I see your point. I have added Curtain call and All the Bravest and Pictlogica although i am struggling to find references for the latter two even though i know he's in there. I feel that Leon's storyline is outlined within the paragraph. Record Keeper, Artniks and Airborne Brigade i am not familiar with so will have to do a bit of research before i can update further. Bailo26 19:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source Review

In my source reviews I do both citation formatting problems and validating that all sources are RSs. Will return to add on spot-checks in a little bit. Addition: did eight or so spotchecks (plus a few game quotes) and they all came back clean.

  • ref 1 - the publisher is Square Enix, not SquareEnix.com
  • ref 3 - if an author is not stated, do not put the author as "staff", just leave it blank
  • ref 5 - can you justify why FlareGamer is an RS?
  • refs 4-9 - Square Enix has never had a dash in the name
  • ref 7, all quotes- if you want to go with Square Co. instead of just Square, you need the period after Co.- it's short for company
  • ref 22 - the publisher should just be RPGamer; it's not like we say the publisher is ign.com, after all
  • ref 29 - the title is not Kingdom Hearts (at Square-Enix.com), it's just Kingdom Hearts
  • General - you need to be consistent in what you link in references- I thought you were just not linking anything, but around here you start linking some games and publishers. Either all publishers/games should be linked, only their first occurrence, or nothing.
  • ref 31 - date is formatted differently than other refs
  • ref 32 - date is formatted off, and can you justify why 91.8 The Fan is an RS?
  • ref 33 - date
  • ref 34 - date
  • ref 35 - it's GameSpot, not Gamespot, and you shouldn't have it italicized as a work if you don't provide a publisher, which you haven't done for other online sources
  • ref 38 - GamesRadar is one word, and date
  • refs 39-41 - date
  • ref 40 - author is provided for this article (Ishaan)
  • ref 41 - don't italicize without a publisher
  • ref 43 - author name style is off, and suddenly you give the publisher for an online source when you haven't been before- pick one
  • refs 44, 45, 47 - publish date is provided for these sources
  • ref 50 - archive date and publisher inconsistencies
  • ref 51 - can you justify why PSXextreme is an RS?
  • ref 56 - date format, and can you justify why Cheat Code Central is an RS?
  • ref 57 - you don't need "staff", and Edge is a magazine (with a website) so it should be italicized
  • ref 58 - publisher inconsistency
  • ref 59 - publisher not given
  • ref 60 - publish date given in source
--PresN 19:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
talk) 19:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Funnily enough, having written 11 video game-related FAs, I do know about
WP:VG/RS. It's not the job of a source reviewer to justify why they are unsure a site is an RS- if they are, it should be easy enough for the nominator to prove. It's their job to question things that seem off. To be specific though: FlareGamer appears to be a blog that gives no indication that they fact-check or that the writers themselves are notable; 91.8 The Fan appears to be a online fan radio station; PSXextreme appears to be notable now that I look at it but wasn't listed at VG/RS; Cheat Code Central is a cheat site, not a professional news/reviews site, so I don't know why their opinion about a game matters at all. --PresN 19:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
PresN, if you were feeling defensive, there was no need to be. I did have a peep at your contribution history and user page before asking you about why you feel the sources are unreliable. As you no doubt know, it's common in WP:Good article reviews or WP:Featured article reviews for those involved with the review process to ask each other questions so that they can better understand matters. Reviewers are queried and/or challenged on matters as well, of course. I'm glad that you struck PSXextreme off the list, considering that I'm familiar with that magazine (have not read one of them in years, though) and was wondering how it might not quality as WP:Reliable. As for the rest, thanks for explaining.
talk) 20:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

I have addressed the majority of the issues contained within this review. I think i only struggled with Ref 47 as I cannot find the publish date anywhere. As for the justifying refs:

  • FlareGamer - Ref 5 - Bear with me on this one..
  • 91.8 The Fan - Ref 32 - While in itself perhaps not a reliable source, This is an audio interview with the actor in question. I'm not sure how much more reliable you could get than that.
  • Cheat code central - Ref 56 - Cheat code central does require its contributing authors to write sample articles before it allows them to become a contributing author. Furthermore i would argue that this is an opinion piece which states at the bottom of the page "*The views expressed within this article are solely the opinion of the author and do not express the views held by Cheat Code Central.*" I have updated the article to reflect this.

Bailo26 19:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero

I've been staying away from character articles for a while, but I can't be bitter forever if someone needs help. Here are a few initial comments to help keep this afloat:

  • The organization of the first section seems kinda haphazard. I don't object to the height being included at all, but it doesn't make sense being where it is. And the two paragraphs are very uneven - could this be reorganized from scratch roughly chronologically?
  • Is GameSpot Cheats a reliable source?
  • Formatting of website names in References is inconsistent: for example, see 43 and 58 (GamesRadar) vs. 45 (GamesRadar) - and none of them are linked.
  • "critics described him as a "jerk", but his design (including his scar) made him visually appealing" - This sentence, as it stands, is non-neutral and unrelated to its preceding clause. Or am I interpreting it wrong?

Tezero (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of references, Bailo26 recently changed the reference format style for some sources, including delinking the publications. I question this change because I've seen a significant shift in how bots and editors generally cite the dates; these days, dates for references on Wikipedia are generally cited the way they were before Bailo26. On the other hand, consistency in reference style should be employed, and it seems that Bailo26 was going for consistency with the reference changes. As for linking the publications, that's a preference of mine; I prefer the linking so that editors and readers can learn about the publications and/or quickly see that they are reliable.
What sources is GameSpot Cheats? I know that GameSpot is a WP:Reliable source.
As for the "critics described him" line, what do you find non-neutral about it? Is it that you would rather we use
talk) 05:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Go ahead and relink them all if you want, or only link the first instance of each publication. Either's fine, but it's not okay for a source like GamesRadar to go unlinked in the references altogether.
Number 35. GameSpot reviews and articles may be reliable, but I'm wondering if these cheats are user-submitted.
Does GameDaily state that other critics found him visually appealing? If so, state that outright. If not, mention that it's GameDaily's words. Either way, the reader is not necessarily going to think Squall is visually appealing, so even if there's a source, we can't take it as a fact. Tezero (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The previous wording is clear that GameDaily is stating it: I've changed it back to that.
talk) 02:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Flyer22: Have you taken over this nomination from Bailo26? He seems to have vanished. If you plan to see it through, it would be best to add a bit of clarification at the top, so that reviewers aren't confused. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Like I mentioned to Tezero above, Bailo26 recently changed the reference format style for some sources, so he's still around. As for why he hasn't responded lately in this review, I think we should give him some time. I have not taken over for him, and am not heavy into playing video games (my brothers are, and I used to be), though, yes, I used to be very familiar with
talk) 02:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Indeed i am still here. I have just had a few issues of a personal nature i am trying to deal with. I haven't disappeared and will continue to make edits as and when i can. Furthermore i believe i have linked all the references back up! Bailo26 20:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever

I give just a simple Support on this article. Looks fine to me. }I

(60nna)I{ 21:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Squall_Leonhart/archive1&oldid=1136095449"