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 15:17, 8 May 2008.


The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time[edit]

previous FAC (00:34, 18 April 2008)


Yes, this article was just here, but I have used the previous FAC as a peer review to improve the article, and believe I have addressed the commenters' concerns. There is much that is new about this article. Please let me know what more can be improved, or anything from the previous FAC that is still not satisfactory. This article is part of a current featured topic nomination. Pagrashtak 16:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All other links worked. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has been my experience that Joystiq is considered reliable among members of the VG project, and it is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#List. If others take issue with it, it is being used to cite something that is somewhat trivial, and could be removed if it's a problem.
For rpgfan.com, I'm not familiar with the site off-hand. Someone else added that reference, I believe, and I decided to leave it. It's only used to reference the number of tracks on the soundtrack and the duration, which could be sourced directly to the primary material. I thought it might be better for the user to reference the website, as it is much easier to check. If this is believed to be a problem, I can switch the reference to the soundtrack itself if that's agreeable.
Addition—RPGFan is used by Game Rankings when compiling a combined score (source), which lends more credibility to the site. Pagrashtak 04:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Magic Box, I believe it is considered reliable by the VG project, and is used extensively to source List of best-selling video games (it is also sourcing sales in this article). Pagrashtak 19:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For all those sources, we need something that proves their reliablity. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Joystiq is part of Weblogs, Inc., which is owned by AOL. [1]
As I mention above, RPGFan meets the criteria of Game Rankings, part of CNET Networks, to be included in the overall compiled score. (Game Rankings criteria). I suppose I'll end up replacing the Magicbox source. Pagrashtak 20:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Joystiq is a blog then? I'm trying to see how citing a blog, even a well known and respected blog is necessarily a reliable source. Is the person who wrote the particular blog well known in the video game field? The information it's sourcing is "Ocarina of Time contains unused development code, such as an Arwing from the Star Fox series, with attack and movement fully programmed." I need to see how this is a reliable source of information (Of course, the fact that the source doesn't say that it's unused development code is another issue.) This isn't the biggest and most important of soucing issues, granted. The RPG fan information is the length of the Japanese soundtrack, which I'm not sure really needs that ironclad of a source, but could it be sourced to Amazon or something like that? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't give a blog across-the-board approval for reliability, but I would consider some blog posts reliable enough in certain situations. It's definitely a case-by-case matter. Technically, I suppose this could be sourced directly to the video game, but it would be extremely difficult for any reader to verify. As I mentioned before, this isn't a vital fact and could be removed.
I've already looked for the Japanese soundtrack information—Amazon was the first place I looked. They give the number of tracks, but not the length of the soundtrack,[2] so I didn't replace the source. A Google search didn't turn up anything reliable looking at a once-over. Pagrashtak 05:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to make you take out information, but even this sort of stuff needs something reliable. The bit about the development code/etc. probably doesn't need the most ironclad of sources, but it should still meet WP:RS. The soundtrack could just go to the soundtrack, if someone had it. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented out the Arwing sentence. The best sources I could find were Kotaku and N-Sider, which aren't any closer to RS then Joystiq. I've replaced the RPGfan references with the website for Pony Canyon. Pagrashtak 17:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, those two taken care of, did we resolve the Magic Box information or not? I got lost somewhere in here... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was giving myself a little more time to look through a Google search—I have to wade through a lot of forums and blogs. It's replaced now. Pagrashtak 15:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, though I too would like to hear what people think about the track listing, because I believe other FA game articles include their cd's track listing. Great job! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(interjection) it's been my experience with FACs that track listing are generally not looked upon kindly, but you can always have a show/hide mechanism for the listing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker has a track listing, but it was merged in from what used to be a separate article covering the soundtrack well after the FAC. I need to spend some time cleaning it up—I might use comments in this FAC to help guide me in the soundtrack section there. Pagrashtak 04:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Really, a nicely written article. My only concern is that there seems to be a large amount of images on the article, and they seem cluttered together. I'm not so certain that they are all necessary. --haha169 (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replies by Pagrashtak 20:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I’m making me rounds, no need to fret. I guess I will go neutral until I can review the article again. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose

Resolved issues from Buc (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In early 2006, it was ranked by Nintendo Power as the best game to appear on a Nintendo console" Sounds a bit clumsy.
    • Any suggestions? This sentence is a little tricky to reword while keeping the meaning intact.
      • "In 2006, Nintendo Power ranked it as the best game to appear on any Nintendo console." Buc (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #4 doesn't appear to link to the right page.
    • It now points to the specific page for the game. Pagrashtak 21:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buc (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replies by Pagrashtak 15:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "making them unfamiliar and harder to beat" POV
  • Do we need so much info on Majora's Mask in the "Re-releases and sequels" section?
    • I would say yes. It's a direct sequel—something of a rarity in the Zelda games—and I believe a paragraph devoted to MM to explain the difference between the two is warranted and provides context. Pagrashtak 15:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still think it a bit too much detail. Buc (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit puzzled why the game is sometimes referred to as "Ocarina of Time" and other times as just "Ocarina".
    • For flow. For example, in this quote:"Ocarina of Time: Master Quest started as an expansion to Ocarina to be used..." I didn't want to repeat "Ocarina of Time", so I shortened it. Do you think it's a problem? Pagrashtak 15:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind striking any addressed/resolved comments? It will make this easier to follow. Thanks, Pagrashtak 15:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After Link kills the boss of Dodongo's Cavern" probubly better just to say the boss' name (in this case King Dodongo) as some readers may not understand the term "boss".
    • "Boss" is wikilinked, so it should be easy for the reader to find out. I think the reader would have even less understanding of "King Dodongo" than "boss". Pagrashtak 17:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Isn't that link better suited to the gameplay section and a creatures name better suited to the plot. Buc (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think so. Links are suited to the word, regardless of section. Pagrashtak 15:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ocarina of Time is the fifth game in The Legend of Zelda series, but the first chronologically." The ref for this appears to be from the time the game was resealed so how do we know that any of the game released since then don't pre-date it? Buc (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded. With your other comments, you'll have to give me further feedback to let me know why they're still unresolved. Pagrashtak 16:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It been so long since I've played this game so I can't be sure but doesn't Ganondorf say something at the end about how he will one day return? Might be worth mentioning.
    • He doesn't say he'll "return", but he says he will kill Link's and Zelda's descendants. The text from the game about that bit is used right now in a reference if you want to see it. Pagrashtak 17:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not in the article though. That's my piont. Buc (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is swordfighting all one word?
    • Honestly, I'm not sure. I can't find swordfight in a dictionary, so I'm inclined to think it isn't.
  • "Reviews for the Master Quest and the Virtual Console re-release considered the graphics and audio outdated. After originally giving a rating of 10/10, IGN gave Master Quest 9/10 and GameSpot gave the Virtual Console release 8.9/10." I don't quite understand this. Is the Virtual Console version different from the original?
    • Not significantly. There are minor differences, such as progressive scan support and lack of rumble, but the core game is unchanged. GameSpot (and others) gave the VC re-release a separate review, though, complete with a score. Since the VC version was released later, the graphics and audio were approached with different expectations. Pagrashtak 15:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Need to explain this. Buc (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is the coverage in the re-release section not sufficient?
          • That would do for the changes to the game, although all I see there at the moment is something about lack of vibration. Buc (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You'll have to give me something further here if my edits didn't address this. Pagrashtak 18:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for collapsing. I've made some changes, please see if your outstanding comments have been resolved. Pagrashtak 21:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    1. The first paragraph gives information on sales, awards, and rankings. Everything is sourced and reflects an accurate view of critical reception in my opinion.
    2. Second paragraph covers graphics. Positive: Faces were done well, draw distances good. Negative: Blurry textures, graphics outdone by an earlier game for the same console.
    3. Third paragraph covers gameplay. Positive: Detailed, many side quests. Negative: Simple control scheme causes "unintended actions" to occur, new system has learning curve.
    4. Fourth paragraph covers audio. Positive: atmospheric and surround sound used well, immersive. Negative: Samples sound outdated, MIDI songs are "fair to terrible"
    5. Fifth paragraph covers re-release. Positive: Scores still high (9, 8.9). Negative: Called outdated, scores lower than original.

    Pagrashtak 14:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Uneasy about this one. This is much improved in the prose compared with this genre a year ago. But I'm not entirely satisfied yet.

    Comments. Good to see the NPOV stuff sorted above.

    Prose seems to improve in the latter part of the article. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've done most of this. I'm not too keen about expanding the plot in the lead, I'd rather keep the in-universe part of it to a minimum and just provide the basics. As for "is the best-selling", it still is. If I say it was the best-selling game of 1998, it sounds like something surpassed it in December, which isn't the case. Pagrashtak 23:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. first point; that's fine. Second; yeah, you're right, m'bad. Support. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Issues resolved - Black Kite 19:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:ZELDA OCARINA OF TIME.jpg - random screenshot, doesn't improve the understanding anything in the text. One screenshot from the game is reasonable if it is to show the reader the look or style of the game, but does this one?
    • Image:Child link zelda.jpg - clearly decorative, enough NF images in the character's linked articles (far too many in the case of Zelda's), fails #8
    • Image:Ganondorf.jpg - decorative, no critical comment and no extra understanding for the reader, fails #8
    • Image:GoldOoTn64Cart.jpg - it's a gold cartridge. Could be described in text, fails #1 and #8
    • Image:OcarinaMQCover.jpg - box art, clearly decorative, fails #8
    • Image:Ocarinaoftimesoundtrack.jpg - album art, not discussed, fails #8
    I've removed some, but I have questions about the rest.
    • Clarification, really; as I said, a screenshot to show the look and feel of the game is unexceptionable (as long as it's discussed in the text) - I wondered if that was the best image we have to cover that use?
    • I don't know if we could get everyone to agree on the best shot, but it shows the context-sensitive actions described in the text.
    • Image:OcarinaMQCover.jpg isn't clear, at least to me. Master Quest used to have its own article, with that image as the box art in the infobox. ([6]) When it was merged into this article, the box art came with it. I have the suspicion that no one would bat an eye at it being used in the separate article, but it is an issue here. Did something change, or was it also not fair use in the separate article in your opinion?
    • Technically, it would fail NFCC even in a separate article, (though there appears to be some consensus that a single non-free image of the cover as the header shot for an article is acceptable - I would argue that, but whatever). However, in this context it's purely decorative - the cover itself isn't mentioned in the text, and it doesn't enhance the reader's knowledge of the actual subject WP:NFCC#8.
    • I hope you can understand my hesitation—it feels strange to remove it if I leave the boxart in the infobox, but I'll do so.
    • For Image:Child link zelda.jpg, you say it's not needed here because of the images in the character articles, correct? List of characters in The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time has no images whatsoever and Link (The Legend of Zelda) has no image of any character from this game. Princess Zelda has one image from Ocarina, but you've marked the article as having excessive non-free images, so there's every reason to believe it could be removed at any time. Does fair use not permit us to show any artwork for the main characters of this game?
    • The problem here is that this article isn't about Link or Zelda, it's about the game, so if the purpose of the screenshot is merely to show what some characters look like (and if that issue isn't discussed in the text, which it isn't), then again it's decorative.
    • I think that oversimplifies the matter. Sure, the article isn't exclusively about the characters, but any good video game (or movie or book) article will cover the characters to some extent, as the plot section of the article does. I'm of the opinion that character artwork significantly helps the reader to understand the game in a way that text cannot. If I told you that this was the main character of a certain video game, and this was the main character of a second game, that would give you a feel for the design team's intent for those games in a way that words cannot.
    • In the interest of getting this FAC completed, I've moved the image to the character list. Pagrashtak 18:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For Image:GoldOoTn64Cart.jpg, I'm not going to push the point on #8, so I've removed it, but I don't see how it violates #1. If the licensing was incorrect and the image is free, it is not subject to NFCC. If the licensing is correct, then any replacement image would have to fall under the same license, so no free replacement is available.
    • It can be replaced by text. The licensing should be ((Non-free product cover)) , incidentally. Black Kite 23:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, I'm used to #1 referring to other images. That makes more sense. By the way, it would help me if you could collapse or strike your resolved comments—this page is getting long and it will help me to not miss anything left open. Pagrashtak 23:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Pagrashtak 23:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Laser brain, I've expanded the development section and removed the phrase that's not exactly supported by the ref. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Pagrashtak 06:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.