Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chrono Trigger/archive2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC) [1].
- Notified: Zeality, Mazewaxie, WikiProject Video Games, WikiProject Square Enix
Review section
[edit]Given that it has been two weeks since I posted my concerns about this article and have received no response, it's time to start a formal FAR. Here is every criterion that I'm concerned about this article's compliance with.
- Criterion 1a: The writing of the reception section is not very engaging, especially given how bloated the second paragraph and how aimless the third paragraph is. I go more into detail in my talk page notes.
- Criterion 1b: The legacy section contains little information on the game's overall retrospective reception and reputation, with any retrospective review that could help being buried in the reception section.
- Criterion 1c: I'm skeptical of the reliability of N-Sider, Setlist.fm, Squarebrain, The Gaming Vault, Game Watch, Android Police, Chgeeks, Game Tyrant, Gossip Gamers, Demiforce, Goo ゲーム, and Gameky. Some references appear to be misattributed to Chrono Compendium and Schmpulations. Both websites are self-published and are focused on republishing other sources that should be cited instead. Also, there are passages in the gameplay section that don't have citations.
- Criterion 2: The paragraphs in the plot, development, and reception section are too long, violating MOS:LAYOUT's provisions regarding paragraphs. In fact, the plot section itself is too long, being over 500 words past the recommended limit according to WP:VG/PLOT. I mentioned in my notes that the presence of single-paragraph sections in the release section are discouraged by MOS:LAYOUT; I was wrong. It actually only discourages single-paragraph sections when they are very short, meaning the only section that might be suspect is the one on the mobile port.
- Criterion 2a: The lead section contains no information about the gameplay and little about the development beyond credits, both of which should be key elements of the subject.
- Criterion 2c: The citations are not consistently formatted. For example, sometimes the work is italicized, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes the work is linked, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes the title isn't included, sometimes the work isn't included. That's the level of inconsistency we are dealing with here.
I find these issues to be far too extensive to do myself in a day, and I worry there might be issues I am missing. As such, I feel a formal review is necessary. Any additional concerns you may have are welcome. Lazman321 (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Acknowledging this FAR. Not sure if I can commit to working on this soon but keep me in mind. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Since there has been no discussion here a week in, I might as well start working on the article, starting with the abysmal reception section, which I just realized doesn't even cover the reception of the Nintendo DS release. Feel free to comment here in the meantime. You can see my work here. Lazman321 (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to place my work on hold as IRL obligations have come up I cannot ignore. Feel free to work on this article while I'm gone. Lazman321 (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Lazman321, any chance you'll continue work on this? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but no. I was considering potentially helping more by adding a sub-section to the reception section about the DS port's reception, but even if I were to do that, this article is still far from FA-status. I would not be able to fix all these issues myself within a reasonable time, and very few people seem interested in helping. As such, I'm willing to move on to the FARC stage. Lazman321 (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC per above. Hog Farm talk 03:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but no. I was considering potentially helping more by adding a sub-section to the reception section about the DS port's reception, but even if I were to do that, this article is still far from FA-status. I would not be able to fix all these issues myself within a reasonable time, and very few people seem interested in helping. As such, I'm willing to move on to the FARC stage. Lazman321 (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Lazman321, any chance you'll continue work on this? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to place my work on hold as IRL obligations have come up I cannot ignore. Feel free to work on this article while I'm gone. Lazman321 (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Since there has been no discussion here a week in, I might as well start working on the article, starting with the abysmal reception section, which I just realized doesn't even cover the reception of the Nintendo DS release. Feel free to comment here in the meantime. You can see my work here. Lazman321 (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section
[edit]- Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness, sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - a number of the sources mentioned by Lazman above as being of poor quality are still present in the article. Hog Farm talk 20:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Concerns not resolved. Z1720 (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist No noticeable improvement since I last checked on it. Lazman321 (talk) 02:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.