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 removed by Dana boomer 15:29, 15 May 2012 [1].

The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker[edit]

Review Commentary[edit]

Featured article candidates/The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Notified: Pagrashtak, WikiProject Video Games

I am nominating this featured article for review because it fails criteria 1c, not enough inline citations to support the article. A talk page notice was started 1 month ago, but no sources have been added so far. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Questions, comments, complaints?) 16:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which sections exactly need more inline citations in them? GamerPro64 19:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Gameplay section. In fact it's completely unreferenced. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Questions, comments, complaints?) 20:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cutecutecuteface2000, now that you have an editor apparently interested in working on the article, please give a list of all the issues that you found with the article, rather than just listing them one at a time. Dana boomer (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay section is unreferenced.
Plot is excessively detailed.
There is no information on the awards it received at E3.

Those are all the issues I could find. If you find more issues, please reply here. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Questions, comments, complaints?) 15:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Reception section isn't nearly beefy enough for an article like this one. This game received huge reviews from every major publication at the time. Development could stand to be expanded as well. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could we get some thoughts as to whether this article should be kept or delisted? Dana boomer (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think there's room for improvement, but I don't think the problems are severe enough to warrant delisting. Looking at the sources already in the article, I'm betting at least a few could be used to reference the plot and gameplay. There's also a new book out in Japan that discusses the series in great detail (and, presumably, the games including this one) - Hyrule Historia, I believe the name was. I don't have access to a copy, though, but it could be a key resource. The E3 award is noted and referenced, at least at the moment, so that's one item off the list. If these are the only issues, they should be trivial to fix. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra, this article currently has three major cleanup banners on it. How does this mesh with your statement that the article should not be delisted (bearing in mind that it doesn't look like anyone is prepared to do something like integrate a new, integral, source)? I'm not trying to be confrontational, just trying to get your point of view on this. Dana boomer (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - While I see that there is room for improvement, the article right now is not up to standard. Maybe it can become a Good Article if worked on a bit, I don't see it re-obtaining the Bronze Star anytime soon. GamerPro64 00:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. The gameplay and plot sections are very crufty, not to mention unsourced. There's no mention of why Miyamoto changed direction for the Zelda series (namely why he went the cartoon-y route), beyond age appeal. The development seems to be lacking, with regards to the actual development of the game. Instead, it just seems like a history of released information on the game. "The script of the game was written by Mitsuhiro Takano and Hajime Takahashi,[19] based on a story idea by Aonuma" - this is a very interesting part, since it deals with the actual history/development (not just what the public found out), and that sort of stuff should be expanded. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.