Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Final Fantasy Tactics

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 13:59, 22 December 2007.

Final Fantasy Tactics

previous FAC

Self-nomination. I'm trying this again. Currently a Good Article. Article has been given proper citations as with other Featured Final Fantasy game articles. Images have also been given fair use rationales. Formatting is addressed. No glaring grammar mistakes. — Bl ue 。 09:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The reception section is lacking. This is a PSOne game released in 1997/1998, yet the critical reception section relies solely on GameSpot and IGN, sources that were no influential, respected or well read at the time. There is no reception from any country outside of the United States. There is no sales data. - hahnchen 17:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I've wrote in sales figures and inserted the sources. The only reception for a country outside Japan is a poll by a Japanese magazine, but it is suffice. Please outline reviewers or sources that are considered influential, respected or well read at the time. — Blue。 21:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Game reviews are just like music reviews, IGN and GameSpot are fine for recent releases, just as Pitchfork Media and All Music Guide are for albums. But for something a bit older? I'd want to hear from Rolling Stone and the NME. Review quotes from EGM, Game Informer, or Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine would be a lot stronger than the current lineup. I'm not familiar with RPGfan, and do not believe that their arguments add anything to the reception section. I'd want some Japanese reaction contemporary with the release though, Famitsu's score should be enough. - hahnch e n 23:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Found Famitsu score, and a quote from one of the three magazines stated above. RPGFan's argument is a valid criticism on the game, that is unless a stronger reception can be found and placed instead. — Blue。 12:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The single Metacritic snippet from EGM isn't enough to satisfy my concern with the article. Why have you chosen to use the 2000 RPGFan review over the 1998 RPGFan review? Either way, the box out should show that there were in fact two reviews from two writers at RPGFan. Right now, it reads as if the single RPGFan quote is their single official take on the game. - hahnch e n 17:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I've inserted another magazine quote. And the two reviews generally convey the same criticism, though there are noted differing opinions, so have been tweaked. — Bl ue 。 20:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - With the addition of sales figures and reception information from other countries, this article is finally comprehensive and is referenced from top to bottom. It will make a good Featured article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Bluerfn's nomination. Greg Jones II 22:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Object. Too many unreferenced claims; for example Setting and Characters have not a single reference.~~--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done References have been made for the plot section. It may be in-game reference but it is suffice to support the claims. — Blue。 19:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately, there are still paragraphs missing citation. First para in Legacy and in Development.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done References have been made. — Blue。 10:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Where's the citation for the last para in characters? The Legacy section still has its last para missing citation, too.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done References have been made. — Bl ue 。 20:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The article is well written, comprehensive, follows style guidelines and has appropriate images. An excellent article in my opinion. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Such a heartening praise from a great copy-editor. Thank you, Guyinblack25 :). — Bl ue 。 21:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support another vastly comprehensive and well-done FF article, good job. igordebraga ≠ 19:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately, one of the source (#71) is a Tripod page from a fansite. It isn't a reliable source! FFXII International + Paul Rodgers (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have replaced that ref with a direct ref to Famitsu, from which the information was derived. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much, Axem. — Bl ue 。 04:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - all issues that were raised have been taken care of to my satisfaction. --PresN (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Bluerfin, have you asked the Opposers to revisit? Please complete all websource citations per WP:CITE/ES; all need a publisher and last accessdate, and author and publication date when available. Most of the sources do not identify the publisher. Did reviewers check for reliability of sources when source publishers weren't even listed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have. So far, no response. I will edit the sources as soon as possible. — Blue。 23:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sources have been formatted. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    - Thanks, Guyinblack. — Bl ue 。 19:41, 20 December 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.