Talk:Seven Samurai 20XX

Seven Samurai 20XX was a Video games good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 13, 2006	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
June 24, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Omocat (4 participants)
Fortnite Chapter 5 Season 2: Myths and Mortals (7 participants)
SpongeBob SquarePants (disambiguation) (7 participants)
Stick Soldiers (1 participant)
Ganbare Goemon Kirakira Dōchū: Boku ga Dancer ni Natta Wake (6 participants)
Matt Alt (1 participant)
Granny (video game series) (5 participants)
Rick Jay Glen (4 participants; relisted)
Kelly Metzger (9 participants; relisted)
Do You Like Horny Bunnies? (15 participants; relisted)
Atlus USA (14 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Scared Jewel, Steeple of Light, Child of Heaven[edit]

Unless this is a huge game with a large number of characters upon which vast amounts can be written, I suggest that the articles for Child of Heaven and Steeple of Light and the as yet unwritten Scared Jewel article be merged into the text of this article. This will keep everything about the game in one place.

The existing articles can be retained but turned into redirects to this one, so that if perchance someone types Steeple of Light they are taken to this article where they see the edifice described in the context of the game to which it belongs. I think that would be better than the current situation where the relevant articles contain lots of duplicated information from the main article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done. I misunderstood the merging qualties and information containment suitible for articles when I first arrived at wikipedia. I think its much better now.-Zero^Talk 14:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

Okay, article looks good, couple of points -

Make sure all game names are italicized and not abbrevated (I didn't check but you should ;)
Don't leave a space between a full stop and a ref, it should be this -

.<ref>

Not this -

. <ref>

Shrinky the references, see Super Smash Bros. Brawl's reference section for the code
Nice work on the FURs, but the summaries are shaky, a description would be good too.
Needs a sequels/prequels/history area (merge with reception probably).
Cleanup plot, looks kinda iffy.
Remove some images, personally, I would consider this a breach of Fair Use. Yes you have FURs, but there are just too many to be below the line. I was involved with a similar problem at Super Smash Bros. Brawl, where we had to reduce the gallery drastically to fit with fair use ruling.

It's on its way, just keep editting. Cheers, H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 16:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I originally used {{ref}} to reference the article. Cyberskull later editted and used the current format, so I'm not paticularly keen on details.

There are no sequels/prequels, dear. This was a one-shot game at bringing kurosawa's legendary film into a fustristic setting and it didn't fair very well. How can the plot be improved...? -Zero^Talk 19:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove all those chapter things and summarize. And reference. H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 20:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~I most certainly cannot reference. Its a low-venue video game with a single FAQ on gamefaqs. I've played it and I own it. You'll have to accept my edits on this.~~

As for removing the chapters, that's how the game is divided between level loading screens. I find that the article Half-Life also follows this organization. -Zero^Talk 20:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offence, but just because there is a lack of references on a subject doesn't mean we have to accept your word on it. H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 21:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes, everyone else has however. I see no other objections aside from one. Any other suggestions..? -Zero^Talk 00:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

I'm refractoring. At the time of my previous comment, I was utterly unaware of being able to source content as such from the parent material. I've made plot citations as appropriate. -Randall Brackett 17:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highway should speckle the page with {{fact}} tags so you can know what you need to reference. You can reference the game itself if you need to, see Final Fantasy X for examples of that.--SeizureDog 21:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good idea. -Zero^Talk 23:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents on the article. The sections Game play and Plot should be compelling prose. Plus, you need the spoiler tag for both sections. IMO, its a bit far from the GA status but keep on editing and well see. Lincher 23:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to edit the article and attempt to fix what requires "compelling prose". I'd strongly disagree on the inclusion of spoiler tags. -Zero^Talk 13:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN. If the article needs spoiler tags it gets them.

I'm failing the GA because with Highway Cello's objections and Lincher's objections combined it is nonsensical to have it on hold. It's such an easy process to resubmit for GA when ready, so let's clear the queue. --kingboyk 15:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When an article is nominated for GA it reasonable that the editors/nominator of the article act in good faith. The plot spoiler tag is considered polite and expected on all articles which release information that would spoil the subject for people reading the article. Your response to this request far from acting in good faith. Other issues as describe still need to be addressed. For these reasons I was failing the article, but due to edit conflict User:Kingboyk already has. Gnangarra 15:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Additionally read this as the reasons for a spoiler Gnangarra 15:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue working on the article. After reviewing others, I don't think it was ready. As for the Spoiler, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored -Zero^Talk 16:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think some wires are getting crossed here :) A "spoiler warning" simply says "Plot and/or ending details follow." It's a courtesy to our readers to let them know that if they continue reading some plot details will be revealed to them. It's not censorship in any form.

I haven't read the article in detail so I don't know if they're needed here. If they are, would somebody please add them? Perhaps Zero would then see they aren't so bad. And, if he doesn't, well that's where WP:OWN comes in :) Nobody owns this article, and Wikipedia policy is to employ spoiler warnings. --kingboyk 17:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't paticularly view them as bad, simply items that posess no relevance to an encyclopedia intent upon the sharing of knowledge. See User talk:Megaman Zero for more clarification. -Zero^Talk 18:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policy..? Wow! Have you even looked at the Wikipedia:Spoiler warning page...? You might also like to see Wikipedia:Guideline#The difference between policy / guideline / essay / etc. -Zero^Talk 15:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Please list any problems seen with the article here for clearer reference. -Zero^Talk 17:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lead section needs copy edit to expand and remove weasel wording designs by renowned French

the sub section Battle maneuvers isn't encyclopedic its a how to. the rest of the Game play section is fine.

Plot section needs a spoiler warning read above it's just courtesy to other readers.

Reception is actually Critisims this section needs more cites, or less weasel wording Many complained, Others complained

then give it copy edit Gnangarra 04:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for the advice. I'll get to work on it now. -Zero^Talk 19:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -Zero^Talk 22:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA status[edit]

I took a look at this article to see if I could pass or fail it, but it really lost me in places, which seems not to be in sync with the GA standard "(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers". I am even a gamer, and couldn't understand the article. For example:

"twin-sworded fighting style" - no idea what that means, should be defined in the article or linked.
"... is the potential skill-related battle commands such as the Nitou-Ryu mode" - totally lost me there. What's a skill-related battle command? What is a "mode" in this context?
"The point of the game is to constantly keep the second sword out..." - lost again. That's the point of the whole game? Might be better to say something like, "An important technique in the game is..."
"... increasing the durability of its timer with just steps, just guards and just attacks." Not sure what this means. How does a timer have durability?
You introduce the concepts of "just steps" etc before you actually explain them - needs to be the other way around.

Overall, the article has too many in-game terms without context or explanation. Also, it needs a thorough copyedit, as it has several spelling, grammar, and consistency issues (for example, you capitalize "Nitou-Ryu" in some places, and one place it is lower-case).

I am willing to place the nom on hold for seven days, but I think if the article can't be substantially cleaned up in that time it would fail GA. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aguerriero gives good advice. As an editor whom played the game regualrly, I understand how my depiction of the article conveyed a sense of being incomprehensible to those who didn't. I'll do a rewrite immediately. -Zero^Talk 19:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Hold[edit]

This article is On Hold at WP:GAN, once you have fixed this problem, please remove the On Hold template yourself.

The lead image doesn't have a fair use rationale
You still haven't cleaned up the references

Refs should be like this -

.<ref>

Not

. <ref>

Now Zero, ;) once you have fixed this, remove the On Hold template? 'Kay? ;P H ig hway ^{Return to Oz...} 17:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Comments[edit]

I dropped by to review this article for GA and have a question. Is there a gaming equivalent of a spoiler warning template? If so, should it go in here? Otherwise, besides minor language style problems, it's good to go. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 13:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's recently been a giant discussion about spoilers in video game articles, and whether they have any use in an encyclopedia at all. It's ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC. I'll put them in for now, since it seems like the RfC is going to be canned. --Zeality 16:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the article on hold because the plot paragraph requires cutting down. Generally three of four paragraphs are enough to describe the game. Iola k ana|^T 18:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A week was spent on hold and no response, so the article is automatically failed. Moreschi 12:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Development section[edit]

Why isn't there one? That is standard for video game articles. Who made this game? How was it made? What about sales figures? Even if the GA reviewers don't require it, the article writers should add it. Judgesurreal777 05:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]