Talk:The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs) 03:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will start a review of this shortly. What I can say off the bat is that plagiarism is not a concern. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

My apologies Cuchullain for the confusion possibly caused by the review being restarted, however, it was brought to my attention here that the length of the reviews was a concern. Due to this, I am restarting the review.

Overall I do not see any major issues with the article, however, I noticed that the article could possibly do with some more citations?

"Nintendo's Zelda team initiated plans for a new game early in the development of the GameCube system, before Majora's Mask was completed for the Nintendo 64 in 2000" - source?
"... included a GameCube port of Ocarina of Time as well as its previously unreleased expansion, Ura Zelda." - source? If it is covered elsewhere in a ref, could use duplication here
"Nintendo presented a demo clip of the new game at the 2001 Space World, August 23–26." - source?
Although it may not be easy/possible to fix, I do notice a lot of WP:CITEKILL, sometimes 6 citations for 3 words. I would recommend either looking into WP:CITEBUNDLE or distribute the citations beside the information that they support (or prune them, although that is not the approach I would personally take).

That's it. I am placing this On hold until these concerns are addressed and shall check back here frequently. Thanks for your time and sorry for any confusion caused. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TheSandDoctor. I'll take care of these immediately. "Nintendo's Zelda team initiated plans for a new game early in the development of the GameCube system, before Majora's Mask was completed for the Nintendo 64 in 2000": The cites follow the next sentence, footnotes 15 & 16. They verify the info in both sentences.

"... included a GameCube port of Ocarina of Time as well as its previously unreleased expansion, Ura Zelda." That passage and the two following are sourced to footnotes 45, 46, 47, and 48. Each of the cites give only pieces of the information. 45 is the one that includes the bulk of the info for the entire passage. 46 is about the Japan release with the bonus game called Ura Zelda, 47 is about the North American release with Ura Zelda named Master Quest, and 48 confirms that it was released as Master Quest in Europe. I'll add 45 behind the passage in question as well, as it covers that whole passage.

"Nintendo presented a demo clip of the new game at the 2001 Space World, August 23–26." This and the following 2 passages are cited to 17, 18, and 24; 17 and 18 cover the Space World demo passage. I could move them up to the end of that sentence as well if you think it would be better.

The WP:CITEKILL issue is going to be tricky to fix. In writing up those passages, I looked at all the reviews available to me (all the sources listed at Template:Video game reviews and a few others noted as reliable at WP:VG/RS) to find what was common between them. I preferred this to the way other video game articles sometimes handle things, where there's a quote at a time with no true indication that it's representative. As such it won't be possible to move citations to a more direct place with something like "[level design was praised] especially in the dungeons", as all five of those reviews praise the dungeons. At one point another editor went through and removed some of the citations, but it seemed pretty haphazard so I reverted it. We could do some citation bundles, but in my opinion that usually results in even more overkill - you have to copy the full citation in every footnote where it's used, which adds even more bulk to the ref list. But I'm happy to do it if others prefer.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cuchullain: Thanks for your response and understanding as I attempt to resolve concerns raised. Your explanations seem quite fair - I would just like to see citations closer to what they support, then again, I think that that could just be personal preference and I do see what you mean. As for the CITEBUNDLING, it was just a suggestion and I am happy to leave it as is. If you do not want to copy the citations closer, I do not see an issue with that, just let me know. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've rearranged the cites for your second and third comments, so see if that looks any better. Probably tomorrow, I'll take a stab at bundling at least the cites with 5 or more and see how that works. I'm down for either bundling the cites, or keeping them as separate sites, so long as all of them are kept for the passages they support.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cuchullain: I am satisfied with what you have and are planning to do. If you want, I can pass this review right now, or do you want to wait? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheSandDoctor: By all means, pass it if it's ready. The cite bundling won't change anything besides how some of the cites are presented; changes to the actual article presentation will be small. Thanks for your guidance!--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cuchullain: You are very welcome! I have gone ahead and promoted the article again, thank you once again for your understanding and I apologize for any confusion this has caused. Now that I know a lot more about the reviewing process and have more experience, if you have any other articles you would like to have reviewed, I would more than happily do it - I only have one more re-review to do but I am waiting for the nominator to get back online from vacation. Any experience I can get I am happy for as I want to improve as a reviewer. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered DYK or attempting to get this article back to featured article status? While I do not have any experience with FA, I think you are well on the road to that. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheSandDoctor: Thanks! I thought this review went well. I hadn't thought about DYK, but I have thought about FA status. I'll have to check with someone experienced with video game FAs.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]