I believe this article is FA-worthy. First, it is comprehensive because it covers the major points of the gameplay, story arcs, setting, criticism, development, and so on. Second, it has been the target of numerous copyedits from four or five different editors (and one or two other good copyeditors did absolutely nothing to this article, which either sends us a false message or shows that it's fine). Third, the story section is balanced in that it covers all major story arcs without having to go into excess detail on the main article (or a parent article, for that matter). Additionally, the article has been surprisingly stable outside of the major edits by Ryu, myself, and several others. Sure, it gets the occasional fansite and a "cruft" injection every now and then, but it has shown stability even after the major editing push concluded. The pictures portray a well-rounded visual of the game, and the captions are succinct.
I know that some of you will have issues with the length, which is actually secondary to comprehensiveness. The length is 41 KB, which is significantly less than some other game articles. We tried to strike a compromise between inclusonism and deletionism here, and we hope you can understand that we editors go through a lot of stress trying to play monkey in the middle. So, I ask you, look at the content and the prose, not the superficial stuff. If this nomination turns into an inclusion/deletion battlefield, it will be withdrawn, because the editors of this article do not believe in tailoring the article to meet someone's personal beliefs and opinions — stuff that is not clearly stated in the criteria. In other words, please keep your objections and supports based on the criteria, and not wikiphilosophy. This is absolutely nothing against any user or group of users; we just want to nip this in the bud. Thank you, and let the nomination begin! — Deckiller01:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Co-nomination/Strong Support: Like Deckiller, I've been one of this article's dedicated editors. Together the two of us — and a few other skilled copyeditors who have offered input — have attempted to make the article cover all major aspects of the game and its notable relations, as well as ensure that it covers the storyline's major arcs while remaining concise.
I'd also like to second Deckiller's request that the focus of comments be on the criteria for FA and the content of the article rather than any wikiphilosophy related to length. It's very trying for us as editors to be caught in a war between opposing philosophies seeking to make an article they didn't personally work on be the example of their standard. We believe that as the article stands, it is a fair compromise to both schools of thought. While touching on the major story arcs and their resolutions, it doesn't go into exhaustive detail on every sub-plot; however, while being succinct, it also doesn't cater to a "one size fits all" ideal with regard to length. There is no one size fits all, for not all plots are the same size. These matters should always be examined on a case-by-case basis, and I respectfully ask that this be done here.
Ryu Kaze01:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)reply
I will say I have been following the article for a while and the editors have done an outstanding job :). If it isn't a FA right now, it is awfully close...
RN02:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Fantastic article - one of the most comprehensive and informative (relatively speaking) I've seen in a FAC nomination in a long while. Kudos to the main editors
Wisdom8905:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment some recent issues have been addressed regarding images and image boxes, but there are previously settled debates, so it's not exactly a stability issue per se. — Deckiller06:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)reply
I'm not getting any glitch with regards to the first image, and the second one isn't happening now. It just appears to have been something random, and hardly reflects the quality of the article itself.
Ryu Kaze13:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak support. I must say that the standard of writing is a definite cut above that of similar FACs, and sets a new benchmark. I've made several minor changes to the first half, plus one inline query. The rest could do with just a few microfixes.
Tony13:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. This really is a well-written article, although I'm sure finishing touches here and there could make it a bit better. The only problem I have - the fact that the gameplay section isn't very aesthetically pleasing at the moment - doesn't factor into the FAC process. I definitely liked the battle image in its previous position (at the end of the Limit Breaks section), and it wasn't the "glitchy" image in question as far as I know. --
Tristam20:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Support—With such glowing support from Tony, one hardly even needs to read the article to make sure it's readable. But it is; I checked. And it's about as well referenced as one of these articles can be. So yeah, I support. Nice work. --
Spangineeres(háblame)03:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)reply
I also added a few "games" and "the players" into the story section to give it a more fictional feel. That should be good enough for the section. — Deckiller04:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Can you go through the account of the story and fix the tone where it becomes overly informal, e.g., "That's the current status. Now onto the mission objective."? How do you negotiate to apologise?
Tony13:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)reply
The mission objective example is from one of the citations. I'll give the section a runthrough once I get home from work tonight, though. — Deckiller13:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Thanks very much. It's comments like yours and Renmiri's that tell us we did a good job. If somebody who has never played the game can follow the article or finds it interesting, that makes me feel proud of it.
Ryu Kaze19:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Looking good. Definitely one of the better written examples of CVG coverage on Wikipedia, and richly deserving the status of featured article. –
Seancdaug20:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Thanks to both of you for the support. Concerning spoiler tags, as mentioned on Final Fantasy VI's FAC, they're both redundant of the site-wide content notice and our purpose as an encyclopedia, and in this particular case, entirely unnecessary given that the spoilers are in a section marked "Plot". Why place a banner under "Plot" that says "Plot details follow"? That's obvious.
Ryu Kaze13:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)reply
On the matter of convenience, how are they more convenient than the "Plot" header which can be clicked on from the table of contents, and says the same thing the more long-winded banner does? As for flow, they're redundant because the section is already entitled "Plot". Additionally, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, defined as a comprehensive body of information, and includes an
encyclopedia-wide notice of spoiler content already. Even these latter two matters aside, it's already obvious that a section entitled "Plot" will contain plot details. That's what it's there for.
Ryu Kaze04:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)reply