Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 20:23, 9 February 2023

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:53, 5 March 2010 .

Dragon Quest

Dragon Quest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): GamerPro64 (talk); 陣内_Jinnai

• Featured article candidates/Dragon Quest/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Dragon Quest/archive2
• Featured article candidates/Dragon Quest/archive3

After working on the article with User:Jinnai and having it recieve a copy-edit, I believe it meets Feature Article requirements. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Dabs, (lack of) dead links and alt text look fine. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Some problems in the alt text, particularly the second one. Remember that WP:ALT#Verifiability requires that a non-expert is able to verify the alt text from the image alone; I am not able to verify much of the alt text from that image. Ucucha 20:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  Which image(s) needs to have its alt text improve? GamerPro64 (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  The second one. The third is fine, and the first I just edited. Ucucha 20:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  I think I improved the second picture's alt text. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  That's better yes. I made some further edits (took me some time to realize that by "opinions", you meant "options"...), and I'm satisfied with the alt text now. Ucucha 21:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

A set of comments draws near! A fittingly long article for an important series (Toriyama later worked on Chrono Trigger, a favorite game of mine, as well), with some oddities in my opinion:

• (section "Music") "Several albums of Dragon Quest music have been released since the original game was made, the first coming out in 1986, based on Dragon Quest's music."—I don't like the structure here. There's the "plus -ing" thing, but it feels weird in general (as though it were a comma splice but too short to be split into two sentences) as well.
• (section "Manga and anime") "Additionally, The Road to Dragon Quest (Dragon Quest e no Michi) is a manga based on the creators of Dragon Quest published by Enix."
  1. Is the Japanese (kanji) title available? (The romanized title should be in the third parameter, but occupies the kanji field instead.)
  2. Shouldn't the whole title, from "The Road to" onward, be italicized?
  • I added the missing kanji. "The Road to" should be italicized, but "Dragon Quest" (in this instance) shouldn't as it would be double-italicization.陣内_Jinnai 00:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You say this received a copyedit, but I saw enough other things to tweak (besides the ones above) that I think it needs another. See the article history.

• • I asked User:Scapler, the copy-editor, to copy-edit the article again. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

--an odd name 03:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose reluctantly on 1a, because I still found serious language bugs. I fixed some of these, but I fear I've missed more. Get someone else to do another copyedit.

• "Kenshin Dragon Quest: Yomigaerishi Densetsu no Ken is a stand alone game which comes with the a toy sword as theits controller and a toy shield containing the game's hardware."
• "After the inputting the name Erdrick a window opens saying, "INPUT YOUR NAME!""
• "Dragon Quest is such a cultural phenomenon in Japan that there are live-action ballets, the first video game to receive such an adaptation, musical concerts, and audio CDs based on the Dragon Quest universe."—is linking to "cultural" necessary, and is Red Book (audio CD standard) really the best link?
• "For instance, the remake of Dragon Quest VI sold 0.9 million copies in Japan in its first four days, an exceptional sales figure for a remake."—I think 900,000 would be better here, but I haven't checked the MOS on that.
• "The original Dragon Quest game is often cited as the birth of thefirst console RPG, despite the fact that it borrows heavily from the Wizardry, The Black Onyx, and Ultima series, and many others consider Final Fantasy "more important.""
• "Although the first four games to come to America generally received good reviews, and as of February 2008 they were among the most sought after titles for the NES, especially Dragon Warrior III and IV, it was not until Dragon Warrior VII was released didthat Dragon Quest becomebecame critically acclaimed."
• "Other points of contention are its battle system, comparatively simplistic storylines, lack of character development, simplistic, and for older title primitive-looking, graphics and the overall difficulty of the game."—what?
• "The battle system, while notably simplistic, has been noted that it does speed the process of fighting up. As for the difficulty, Yuji Horii has been noted as"—weird structure in the first sentence, and avoid repetitive use of "notably", "has been noted", and "difficulty" in that paragraph.

--an odd name 23:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I went through it and fixed a few awkward sentences.  ?EVAUNIT 00:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've asked another editor to copy-edit the article. GamerPro64 (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

  Everything up to "Monsters" looks good. Will check further later. --an odd name 15:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

  All prose up to "Music" looks good, so I've struck my "Oppose". I may support in 1a if the rest checks. --an odd name 16:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Support on 1a. Some parts still feel a bit redundant ("Creation and design" para 1 to the "Zenithia" section, for example), and I'm not sure stuff within the article like Erdrick and Zenithia should be bolded, but these are debatable or minor IMO. I am vastly more confident in this article now; good work all. --an odd name 16:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. The timeline image at the start of Dragon Quest #Main series has WP:ACCESSIBILITY problems. It lacks alt text (see WP:ALT) and it contains invalid HTML, mostly by omitting alt text where it is required (see the W3C validator output). Apparently it's using some sort HTMLish extension to Wiki markup that is not documented in Help:HTML in wikitext. I suggest redoing the timeline in text, since it's mostly text anyway; but if you want an image, I suggest using a standard SVG image with alt text. Whatever technology is chosen, please fix the alt-text and invalid-HTML problems. Eubulides (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • No we don't want an image as this will need to be continually updated (Dragon Quest X has been announced and i doubt that will be the last). It was based on the code from Final Fantasy timeline. I'm not really sure what alt text needs to be added, and where.陣内_Jinnai 00:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    • It's fine to not use an image at all: text is a perfectly adequate way to represent that information. Apparently the EasyTimeline feature that's currently being used was designed without accessibility in mind. Assuming that EasyTimeline can't be fixed easily, I suggest redoing the timeline as text. Eubulides (talk) 05:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
      • You know anyone who could work on that? It would be a shame to lose it as it gives a clear and easy understanding of the release timeline that is further explained in the text. It's much harder to get across some elements of the time gaps later as opposed to earlier without such just by reading.陣内_Jinnai 15:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Surely it's easy just to use a table? I did that. I used a very plain style; please feel free to gussy it up. Eubulides (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Sorry I didn't get back to this sooner. I was busy with RL and when i got back wanted to fix the problems i saw that I could. The table had one major flaw; it leaves it indistinguishable on a cursory glance from the text. The blue like for the left collum is what set it apart. Unfortunately, I cannot figure out how to recreate this as a table and remove the white borders around everything (mostly the rows) so that the blue is seamless. As this timeline is designed to mirror the FF's timeline, I'd like it to be able use the standard functions of wikipedia while still maintaining the uniform appearance as much as possible.陣内_Jinnai 02:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
            • If the problem is that there's not a sharp boundary between the table and the surrounding text, a simple fix is to put a border around the table, which I just did. Or, if you prefer, lots of other effects could be used, such as table colors. But perhaps I didn't understand the previous comment? Sorry, I don't know what "FF's timeline" is, but if other timelines are using the EasyTimeline Mediawiki extension they also have WP:ACCESSIBILITY problems, as that extension was designed without accessibility in mind, and generates an image without alt text; any such timelines need to be fixed. In my talk page you also wrote that the table "is also much larger text that can take up a huge chunk of the page displayed", but I don't understand that comment, as (with my browser, anyway), the table consumes less screen space than the EasyTimeLine output did. Eubulides (talk) 05:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
              • I wanted to have the left collomn clearly distinquishable at a glance from the right. The easiest way to do this, which {{EasyTimeline}} does quite well, is with color that is otherwise non-intrusive. I realize the template has accessibility issues (among others) which is why I am fine with an alternative.
                For me, the image now takes up ~55% of the page area (ie excluding the left-hand navigation bar). My resolution is 1440x900. The previous time line took up ~1/3 and never anymore. Even if I zoomed in/out it didn't matter. That imo is a bigger issue.陣内_Jinnai 23:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
                • OK, I tweaked it to turn the left column blue, and adjusted the table's size so that on my browser it's now half the area that the EasyTimeline version was. Please feel free to adjust sizes and colors further; tables are pretty flexible. Eubulides (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
                  • Ok. I got that pretty much seems to work. Not quite as small (for me) as the EasyTimeline, but close enough.陣内_Jinnai 05:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
                    • OK, that seems to address all the alt text concerns. Thanks for your patience. Eubulides (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose on criterion 3 (images):

• The logo could be scaled down (not in the article, in its source); it is too high-res right now.
• File:Dragon warrior 3 battle screen.gif is seemingly not the subject of critical commentary or discussion in the article except that players access battle functions through a menu system. The image is not necessary to understand anything in the current text. Also, the fair use rationale is completely inadequate and not properly filled out.
• File:Rockett.jpg Again, I don't think this image is lending any crucial layer of understanding. The text says it all, basically.

--Andy Walsh (talk) 06:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that you want the battle system picture and the slime picture removed? GamerPro64 (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it would be more apt to say that I am asking for them to meet the non-free image use policy. They either need to have proper rationales, be discussed in depth in the article, and be required for reader understanding—or they should be removed. Make sense? --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Slime picture I can understand as there really isn't much. The battle menu is actually mentioned. Is the battle menu for DQ3 specifically? No and nor does it need to be; this is not a DQ3 article; its a DQ article. Some of the commentary is given in the reception. Per WP:NFCI screenshots just require critical commentary, they do not require direct critical commentary as something like video footage does.陣内_Jinnai 16:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The logo has been reduced to 225px. Anything really below that and the letters in the back start becoming too hard to distinguish.

I added some critical commentary on the slime character.陣内_Jinnai 17:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think these fixes will be sufficient. The images are still barely discussed. That is not the only criterion, either—the images must also be critical to understanding. I don't think, as the article is written, the reader needs to see either image to understand what you've written.--Andy Walsh (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The entire article is about Dragon Quest and therefore the logo is by definition, appropriate. If it isn't, then every book/DVD cover, etc is inapropriate.

As for the others, since you do not believe it doesn't cover it and I've explained why I think it does, please explain what you think is critical commentary on it that would suffice; again, it does not need to be direct critical commentary on that image as neither are a video clip.陣内_Jinnai 05:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say the logo was inappropriate. Could you please go back and read my explanation again, so I don't have to repeat it? Critical commentary is not the only requirement. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The image is not necessary to understand anything in the current text. You cannot really describe the graphics level of any kind of program without visual representation unless it uses just simple lines and shapes. Furthermore, it is entirely difficult to get across the idea of how "simplistic" the battle system is with the text. Without it, it would be easy, especially in today's world of high-tech eye-candy centric games for the reader to assume the game was more graphically intense than it really is.
Also, the fair use rationale is completely inadequate and not properly filled out. The entire thing should be filled out properly. The "portion used" is one that doesn't really fit for screenshots. This type of format is used in other feature quality articles.陣内_Jinnai 21:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we're connecting here, somehow. You can't put copyrighted images into the article as a replacement for thorough explanation and critical commentary—they have to be complementary and necessary for the reader's understanding. I don't think we're there. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Question: Are you saying that if there were better explanations and commentary in the prose of the article about what was in the pictures, then they would be justified?  ?EVAUNIT 19:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

He means they are not necessary because they can be given in our own words—that is, our text is a free alternative, so the non-free images are not required and we should remove them. --an odd name 19:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I can understand that. I know this is never a good argument on Misplaced Pages, but taking a look at the other vg series FA's, I see at least one screenshot on each. What are they doing differently than this article?  ?EVAUNIT 19:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────────────────────────┘
(outdent) They weren't checked by Walsh. :) The rules are strict but ill-enforced, in both FACs and Misplaced Pages in general. --an odd name 20:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's all I have to say then : ) what do you think, Jinnai and/or Gamerpro?  ?EVAUNIT 20:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The way I always thought of the slime image was as an example of Akira Toriyama's work and how it's become associated with the Dragon Quest franchise. There's a quote on the slime article from Horii that talks a little about it and any source that talks about DQ will mention Toriyama's work. As for the battle screenshot, would it help to explain it better in the text? I believe the reception section already discusses the use of menu battles and how ancient they seem. Does that image not help in understanding that?  ?EVAUNIT 21:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I added in a brief explanation of Akira's style to the slime section and an explanation of how the game looks different when in a battle. Does that text justify having the two images?  ?EVAUNIT 14:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If the slime goes, I'm not sure that's a huge loss. I'd rather it not, but the artwork is the core issue here. However, Dragon Quest is a video game and the core issue is gameplay. You cannot express just how simplistic the graphics are through words alone because of the way most games are no longer simplistic. Any attempt for more modern gamers to look on this would not understand. They wouldn't understand that "text-based menu systems" means just that-text and only text without some fancy fonts or background. It is essential to understanding why DQ has been looked upon less favorably my some reviewers in the west as not having enough bling, looks like its graphics are dated back in the NES/SNES era, but yet still doesn't look like a cheap fan-made game.

That alone is enough to counter a "words alone candescribe it argument" Walsh has put up. It isn't all right across from the caption, but spread out throughout the article. You cannot describe the simplisicty of a battle system through the way anyone who is even slightly familiar with modern gaming (and that is the larger part of the Wikipedian readership) without showing them just how simple it is. Most people, especially younger ones, won't grasp that concept.陣内_Jinnai 04:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Why are Akira Toriyama and Koichi Sugiyama in the "Creator" field in the infobox? Toriyama is the character designer, while Sugiyama is the composer, therefore only Yūji Horii should be credited as creator in that field. In the Final Fantasy series article, for example, only Hironobu Sakaguchi is in the creator field, not character designer Yoshitaka Amano and composer Nobuo Uematsu. The Prince (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • That conforms with the documentation in {{Infobox VG series}} on how to treat notable people. All 3 members are central, thus notable, figures to the series. {{Infobox VG}} includes other possible fields, but if the former does, its not documented. If it does, I can change them, but all 3 should be mentioned as they are equally (Toriyama perhaps moreso) notable as Horii.陣内_Jinnai 02:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Neither Toriyama or Sugiyama created the concept, Horii did. The field is for the initial concept of the series, not music, artwork, or other aspects. It makes no sense including them. The whole notable thing you're talking about here is whether the creator (which is Horii, not Toriyama and Sugiyama) is notable or not. He is, so therefore he's included. If he wasn't, he wouldn't be included. Toriyama and Sugiyama shouldn't be included at all; if there was a field for music and artwork, they would of course be included as they are very notable. What I'm saying here basically is that they're in the wrong field and it looks very off, IMO. The Prince (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I am following the instructions as they are in the template and furthermore as members important to the franchise. If you feel there is a problem, it is with the template not having the correct field then the template should be edited because their removal from the infobox isn't justified as they are key members and I assume other video game franchises may be similar; I don't know how edit templates or even if that one is editable though as I'm following the template's instructions and all 3 members are important enough to list in the infobox (if Horii is, then the others are equally so), so its either all or none unless the template can be redone.陣内_Jinnai 00:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
        • After making a request at WT:VG the template has been updated so their should be no issue here now.陣内_Jinnai 17:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Quick comment – A couple of references have all caps, which should be taken out. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not strike reviewers' comments, per WP:FAC instructions. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources good Mm40 (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose on sources from Mm40 (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Reference 3 () is a wiki, thus is not reliable Fixed
• What makes http://www.dqshrine.com/features/seinterview.htm (ref 16) reliable? I see the about us page, but there's no evidence that it's official or is checked by anybody else, making it self-published.Fixed
  • Undid this as it meets the criteria of WP:SPS.陣内_Jinnai 21:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• What makes RPGLand reliable? Fixed
• Why is RPGClassics reliable? There's no "About us" page, or proof that it's not self-published Fixed
• Silconera's About Us page does not make me confident that it should be used Fixed
• Reference 62 isn't working for me. Even so, why is it reliable? Fixed
• There's a mix between "Last, First" and "First, Last" in presentation of the author's names. Be consistent! Fixed
• Some retrieval dates are YYYY-MM-DD, while others are written out Fixed
• Some publishers are linked, while others (refs 13 and 21 for example) Fixed
• You cite Edge different ways; compare references 22 and 26 Fixed
• The formatting in reference 79 is messed up Fixed
• Take out all "(in English)" indicators. Also, references 78 and 82 are an Japanese, and should be marked as such Fixed
• Italicize "Wired" in the last reference, number 87. Fixed Mm40 (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I got everything.  ?EVAUNIT 17:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to undermine Evaunit666's good faith effort, but DQShrine is a valid SPS. I realize you are within the bounds to question it, but to say "there is no evidence" when you haven't at least checked our TF page shows you just assuming it fails as I give an explanation there.

"The site was listed in the bibliography in Encyclopedia of Play in Today's Society by Rodney P. Carlisle, a "Professor Emeritus" at Rutgers University."

Beyond that to be specific to address the aspects of the Dragon Warrior (as it was known then) as a RS.陣内_Jinnai 21:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I don't completely understand you, you're saying that DQShrine is reliable because it was used in that Encyclopedia, right? If this is the case, then I'll happily accept it as acceptable. Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by "TF"? Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"TF" is the Dragon Quest task force. --an odd name 22:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, the prose still needs some attention. Some examples:

• If the player's party dies in battle, the group will lose half of their gold and the leader of the party warps to the nearest save location." If the party has died hasn't the leader died as well? Or do you mean "if a member of the player's party dies"? What's a "save location"? Also, the subject here is the singular "group", so it should be "the group will lose half of its gold", or better "the group loses half of its gold".

• • Yes, if the party is dead, the leader is war
  • Fixed.陣内_Jinnai 20:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Inconsistent spelling of "spinoff", sometimes spelt "spin-off".

• • Done.陣内_Jinnai 20:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• "To save one's progress, the player must visit a Church ...". Subjects don't match ("one" and "player").

• • "One" is not the subject. "To save one's progress" is a prepositional phrase. However, I rephrased it as it was poorly structured.陣内_Jinnai 20:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• "... including the Alefgard seen in the first game". The definite article is a bit of a puzzle here. What is "Alefgard"? A country? A region? A place? Why was there no definite article used when it was introduced shortly before this sentence in "the hero who freed the games' setting of Alefgard from darkness." I'm not really sure what the phrase "the games' setting of Alefgard" means in any event.

• • Fixed in both areas and added a note to the discrepancy.陣内_Jinnai 20:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• With the merger of Square with Enix ...". Should be "Square and Enix.

• • Changed to Squaresoft and done.陣内_Jinnai 20:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• "The tenth installment of the main series is currently in development for the Wii." Currently as of when? 2010?

• "The games themselves feature a number of religious overtones – saving the game (in later games) and reviving characters who have died is performed by clergy in churches." What's religious about saving the game?

• • The connection with the church. Later NA games even use phrases like "Ressurection" to revive, "Confession" to save, etc.陣内_Jinnai 20:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Each of the Dragon Quest soundtracks were composed and arranged ...". The subject here is "each", so it should be "each ... was composed".

• • Done.陣内_Jinnai 20:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• "The spinoff titles of the series have received adaptations of their own". They haven't "received" adaptations, they've been adapted.

• • Done.陣内_Jinnai 20:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• "In 2006, Japanese gaming magazine Famitsu readers ...". If Famitsu is the name of a magazine then its name should be given in italics. The way it's written make it look like the magazine name might even be Famitsu readers.

• • Done.陣内_Jinnai 20:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Although the series is a phenomenon in Japan, as of 2002, the games have not garnered as much attention in North America." Seems strangely dated, that was eight years ago.

• • Can't find much more reliable statements, other than sales data for indivisual games, to show anything newer. If GamePro64 knows of some that I don't, that's news to me too. Even with their last game, DQ8 it still hasn't garnered as much attention in North America.陣内_Jinnai 20:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I know the Gamasutra article about the history of Dragon Quest by Kurt Kalata mentions that all the games up to 8 haven't been as popular in America.  ?EVAUNIT 00:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• "The stories avoid melodrama and feature more simplistic characters than Final Fantasy's Squall Leonhart or Tidus who have been sources for contention." Don't understand that at all. "Sources for contention"?

• • Not sure what to do here. To me its obvious. The stories avoid melodrama and feature more splistic characters" is pretty of obvious. The others are comparisons to games that don't from the cited source.陣内_Jinnai 20:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

--Malleus Fatuorum 19:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Jinnai, can you please ask Laser brain/Andy to return to look at the images? And see if Malleus's objection is satisfied? Karanacs (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've already asked Laser Brain and he still opposes, saying that he still doesn't understand why the other two pictures are in the article. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there any possibility of replacing those images with free ones?  ?EVAUNIT 04:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No. As its a specific subject and the material is copyrighted, it cannot be without SE releasing DQ into public domain, which isn't happening.陣内_Jinnai 04:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.