Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shuffle!/archive1

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 not promoted 16:20, 5 November 2007.

---

Shuffle!

I've not nominated the article for a long time, merely assuming that it wouldn't be able to get FA. However, I can't think of how to improve the article any longer and the peer review from long ago was nearly commentless. Before it is brought up though, there is no "Critical response" section due to my complete lack of knowledge of any respectable Japanese visual novel reviewers. Even if such reviews exist, they are likely in magazine form only and would be extremely difficult for me to get a hold of. I therefor hope that such a section is deemed unnecessary to being an FA. Any other issues brought up will be fixed to the best of my ability.--SeizureDog 03:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comments There are no sections on Development, or Music, which I think are two large oversights, especially development. I've attempted to include such a section in the Key visual novel articles, but most of the time it's just a list of names and what they did; not really much to look at in the end, but I would still think this essential for an FA. What's really needed here are interviews from the creators, but I know as well as you that they are few and far between. And what about conjoining Plot, Characters, and Themes into an overall Plot section? I started doing this after a user directed me to the FA article FFVII which has such a configuration. And then I always wondered what was with the titles in a lot of the references being in Japanese text; shouldn't those be altered to titles that the reader can actually read?--十八 05:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • As for development, it's like you said: don't really have much in the way of references for that. It may be that the absence of such a section completely cripples the article from being FA, and if that's the case then there's little hope for the article. As for music, there's plenty of FA video game articles that don't have such a section (for example none of the Devil May Cry games). Obviously Final Fantasy articles need music sections as Nobuo Uematsu is one of the few truly famous video game composers, but I don't think Shuffle!'s soundtracks were notable enough to require a section. As for merging into a Plot section, I don't really like how the FF7 article is set up, plus it's speckled with cleanup tags so I'm not sure if it's a good guideline to use at the moment. As for the references, if the person can't read the link title then fact-checking the link itself isn't going to do them much good is it? Not sure if there's a guideline there or not. Anyways, sorry I can't do much more than defend how it is but thanks for stopping by Juhachi.--SeizureDog 08:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Pass & support

• On the basis it's good enough.

Remark: I can't believe this was notable enough. Learnedo 06:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Reluctant Oppose - Unfortunately, some information about the development of the game is needed to satisfy criteria 1(b) "Comprehensive". There are a lot of game articles that don't have development sections either because of age and/or lack of English sources. It's a shame though, the rest of the article does a decent job of covering everything else. Some other things to reach FA and general comments to help improve the article: 1) Expand the lead paragraphs. 2) Additional reliable sources never hurt an article. 3) There are some sections that could use some reorganization. The "Sequels" section could be be combined into a single two paragraph section instead of three sections with three small paragraphs. Personally, I'm not a fan of bulleted character lists. Most of the FA video game articles have character sections in paragraph form. This article does have the potential to be FA though, hopefully development info can be found. But until then, it doesn't look up to snuff. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC))

  Willing oppose.

  • MOS breach—First caption is not a full sentence, so should have no final period; add "An" at the start, since captions are not short texts like titles.
  • Ungrammatical: "due to it being"—try "because it was". Needs sifting for grammar throughout, by someone else.
  • MOS breach, possibly (consult Dashes): "~$79.73"—Do we allow swung dashes to represent about? In any case, get rid of it or write "about $80"; the exchange rate would have fluctuated since you started reading this review, so don't be over-precise.
  • Sections are choppy, small, disjointed. Try to merge some and use paragraphing more as a strategic structural unit. It's smoother for our readers.
  • Unsure why the text is cluttered with Japanese script. Does it mean anything to English speakers?
  • Pretty ordinary, overall. This first sentence in "Gameplay" sums it up: "The gameplay mostly consists of just reading and listening to the conversations provided." So is this "among our best work", as required? Tony (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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.