Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Chrono Trigger

Chrono Trigger

The article has been significantly rewritten and improved since the last peer review; it has over 40 citations now, all sourced. We're trying to get it FA worthy. Thanks --Zeality 14:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Pretty good so far! The article is impressively well-cited. Here are some questions and comments...

• Who referred to the "Dream Team" or coined the term? Is it in the credits or that hidden programmer room, was it a company term or coined by critics?
• I feel like the gameplay section is fine for most readers already familiar with RPG video games, but to someone who wouldn't know about them, it would just seem like gibberish. I think FAs are supposed to be accessible reads to everyone, not just though familiar with the genre. I mean one paragraph of standard stuff like "they travel by foot or ship on an overworld map, fight monsters, go through time, save the universe" etc. Most of this info is covered, I just think it needs a little more general info for non-video game players. Perhaps also the time travel aspect of gameplay which made the game unique (shooting back and forth affects future events/items/battles/endings) should be briefly explained.
• Several of the allusions in the character descriptions seem like original research, like under Ayla: "It could also refer to the tayra (Eira barbara), as her outfit contains a furry tail akin to the one of this animal." or even (Magus) "Another possible allusion is to Simon Magus, an apocryphal Gnostic figure regarded as the first heretic by early Christian authors." These should probably be cut.
• Are the ROM hacks (or even the plethora of information on the beta cart) really notable enough for inclusion in this article?

--SevereTireDamage 07:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Essentially, I agree with the above.

• That second paragraph in the lead feels really fanboyish. "venerable producer Kazuhiko Aoki" is way over the top.
• "(including Chrono Trigger's sequel)" "Sequel" is the wrong word to link. The link text should be "Chrono Trigger's Sequel" or, even better reword the phrase to include "Chrono Cross".
• Avoid lengthy parenthetical commentary. "Crono's "Cyclone" Tech (a sword spin)" is acceptable, but "thirteen endings (some with minute variations depending on game choices)" is not.
• "the game can be completed without reviving the protagonist... Towards the end of the game, Crono perishes..." These statements are in the wrong order. Being a one-paragraph section I advocate merging it into the main plot summary.
• Curiously, Melchior is not present in the summary of the time periods.
• "The soundtrack to Chrono Trigger is very popular": I'm not sure I like the entirety of the evidence being "a bunch of tributes/remixes" (which I debate the inclusion of) and "two songs are liked by Romero". "Popular" is debatable, "very popular" is right out.
• "Nearly half of all eBay auctions at a given time describe the game as rare, though around 40 copies are constantly available." Looking at the cite given, I see numbers between 25 and 35. 40 is right out.
• "This rarity guide was compiled using auction data from sites such as eBay to determine the scarcity of these games." Stick this in the footnote, or reword it to something like "One compilation of auction data concluded that Chrono Trigger was not rare" and save a lot of redundancy.
• The entire "documentation" section is devoted to fansites. Stab it in the face.
• "Poor conversion of the cartridge to the PlayStation..." Cite, plz. This shouldn't be hard; surely the PSX version was reviewed.
• As above, the lengthy amount of "unofficial" information (ROM hacks, Beta info, "Chrono Break", etc etc) is of questionable value.

Hope that helps a bit. Nifboy 08:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What would you assess it as at the moment, before we make the changes? Is it still B-Class? --Zeality 20:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The next step up would be GA-class, and that's not really up to me to decide. The CVG project doesn't yet have a mechanism by which A-class can be rated, but those should be the concensus of the project. Nifboy 00:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

A WP:WIAGA/WP:WIAFA assessment:

1. Well written:

   Prose is definitely not FA-quality just yet. Organization might not even be GA-quality yet (for example, the Plot section mentions the "present" and "middle ages (600 AD)" before mentioning that these time periods have nothing to do with Earth.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

   The "Chrono Compendium" (cited 18 times) looks like a fansite, and is probably not a very good source; no matter how "comprehensive" it is, if it has no ethos (established credibility), FAC isn't likely to take it seriously.

3. Comprehensiveness:

   No problems that I see...

4. NPOV:

   There is a slight fannish bent, and a couple weasely words in there ("Popular" I mentioned above).

5. Stable:

   No problem.

6. Images:

   Fair Use Rationale should be a tiny bit more descriptive as to why they're in the article. The anime cutscene's "It is used here for illustrative purposes only." is in fact NOT a proper rationale ("Illustrative" means "for decoration, rather than utility").

Generally speaking, fix some of the prose and submit it for GA. But stay away from FAC until you do some hard work on the article. Nifboy 01:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's an update. Text has been polished across the entire article, shooting for brevity and ease of reading. Weasel words and lengthy paranthetical commentary have been eliminated. The gameplay section has been edited to make it more accessible to non-gamers. I also added some references from Nintendo Power's review to substantiate the claims of innovation. The story section has been heavily edited; a new plot summary is up, and a main plot summary as well as the list of time periods have been removed to their own article. The character section received the same treatment; two summarizing paragraphs replace the former list. The section on the beta version has been shortened to one paragraph, as has the section on unofficial versions. Needed references were added to the potential future sequels section, and only 10 of 48 references come from the Chrono Compendium now. Can you guys review the new and improved Chrono Trigger™? I'm a little worried about submitting it to GA, since GA guidelines state that the GA label is only for articles that aren't capable of becoming FA due to length. --Zeality 02:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I myself have never thought of GA as being a "short articles' FA", despite the intentions of those involved. I've always thought of it as a fast quality check. Nifboy 20:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, just going off the description..."because while they nominally meet FA standards they are very short or they have potential to be a FA but are not ready for the process." With hard work, we might as well go straight to FA. --Zeality 20:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)