I have looked over this article, and have found it does not qualify for GA status in that the article is not broad in its coverage:
Although it is reasonable to limit the scope of an article's Plot section, the
arguments of
Wikipedia:Spoiler allow for a much more comprehensive coverage of the plot as a result of Wikipeida's encyclopedic nature, and every other FF article contains a much more detailed Plot which describes the events of its respective game.
The article completely lacks a reception or legacy section. This may be undestandable becuase of the game's early release and/or general general obscurity, but the Lead statement "was one of the largest role-playing games created for Nintendo's console" implies that there exists information on the subject.
I find it important to note that the article Final Fantasy III is part of a Featured Topic, and therefore deserves and requires that it is a GA in nature and not simply in name. --
Hydrokinetics12 (
talk)
17:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
The plot is usually the less important part of these articles, today most reviewers prefer to have more "out of universe" than content dealing with the fictional material, personally I would like to see a 'reception' section. For a issue like "needing a more extensive plot" bringing it to reassessment without actually leaving a note in the talk page or other venue in order to discuss it seems premature. -
Caribbean~H.Q.08:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment. The article needs to have more information on out-of-universe relevence, ie, reception in the real world. I recommend creating an appropriate section. In its current state the article doesn't comply with
NOTPLOT, thus failing criterion 3.
Majoreditor (
talk)
18:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delist. The article now has a section entitled "Reception". However, the section is completely devoid of content - not a word. There's also some fact tags in the article. It's clearly not GA-class at present.—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Majoreditor (
talk •
contribs) 19:46, 28 February 2008.
Delist Development seems skimpy. Reception is blank. Some fact tags. Some stuff could use citations. What's up with the weird blank spaces, btw?
Ealdgyth |
Talk02:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)reply