I decided to work on this article because the game has an interesting history: a realistic-looking tech demo followed by the surprise of a cel-shaded (cartoony) game that many did not approve of, ending with acceptance, earning awards for the art style and becoming the fourth of five games to date to earn a perfect Famitsu score. I feel that the article does a nice job of describing the plot, the mechanics of the game, and its development history without getting too "crufty" or turning into a player's guide, and is well-referenced. --Pagrashtak 05:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good work. One more high-quality Legend of Zelda article. Phils 06:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As much as I dislike game related stuff as FA, this is real good. Bravo. Coffeeboy 19:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good all-around. Thunderbrand 22:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent job! Jacoplane 23:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well done. Sets the standards by which all game articles should follow. This, along with Majora's mask, will be guides to my work on the Xenosaga game pages (after the Patriots FA process is finished). Deckiller 00:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great work. A second FA for the Legend of Zelda. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 00:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it's the third. See Link (Legend of Zelda). Phils 08:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right, of course. My apologies to those editors who worked to make Link a featured article. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 01:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The development section makes me support this. BlueShirts 01:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; its fantastic, easily the best video game article I have ever read, trumping even Majora's Mask. Dee man45 02:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: is a "cast" section really required? The voice-actors should be contributed in the appropriate places within the article as demonstrated in the Majora's Mask article. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Excellent. -- Wikipedical 03:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and comment. Very well-written article, and I agree this is definitely worth of FA status; I do have one comment, however. The "Development and history" section shifts tenses between present and past, something that should be rectified before it officially reaches FA status. Just something I picked up on; other than that it's great. Anthony 18:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Way too much coverage of game play and the story line and very little coverage of the importance of the game. It's better than most in that it does cover the reviews well, but sales only gets a couple brief and vague mentions. What were the sales totals? Did it sell better in some markets than others, etc? So it needs that material but I won't object. I do wonder why people choose to spend so much time on topics like these when there are so many basic topics we have next to nothing on. Also, the notes section is rather unfortunate in that it makes the research look more impressive than it is. 18 of the 26 notes are to the same website. - Taxman Talk 23:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree. The Gameplay and Story concepts should be trimmed slightly, but not so much as to take away from the second featured article guideline. Deckiller 00:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As long as Wikipedia:Verifiability is met by providing sources for the facts in the article, I see no problem with most of the notes linking to IGN. It is a reputable resource, and I see no reason why this would make the research less "impressive". Jacoplane 00:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- An article that references 20 different sources shows more time, effort, and research was put into the writing. An article that links to one source, especially a non-peer reviewed, non-published source 20 times is more like reporting and may, in someone's opinion, not satisfy FA criteria #1 "representing Wikipedia's unique qualities on the Internet" if that source is a website. -maclean25 22:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet this article references more than one source. IGN.com does seem to have been the primary source of information, but I see at least three other websites and a publication as well. And your suggestion of a peer-reviewed article is preposterous - for obvious reasons, none exist. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 03:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Read the thing myself and I own a copy of the game, it has good information there and seems very well put together. Homestarmy 22:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great use of images to emphisize the text --lightdarkness 19:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - No complaints. Great job done on this article. --ZeWrestler Talk 19:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]