Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/20111005/Feature
WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 4, No. 3 — 3rd Quarter, 2011
Feature: Final Fantasy postmortem
[edit]- Submitted by User:Guyinblack25
This issue we're trying a new type of feature: a postmortem about one of our Featured Articles. The idea is to examine in detail the process that the article underwent on its way up the quality scale. Hopefully, readers will gain a better insight as to what an article requires to improve and learn how to navigate Wikipedia's processes and policies. The first article under the microscope is Final Fantasy, the article about Square Enix's popular fantasy and sci-fi franchise.
Preparation and early edits
[edit]Work to improve Final Fantasy towards higher quality ratings began in September 2007. I had just finished working on the Kingdom Hearts topic, and wanted to continue the momentum I had accumulated. Not knowing exactly how to do that, I took a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Essential articles and felt that the important, yet in poor shape, articles there were (and still are) a good list to improve. Having just finished getting the Kingdom Hearts series article to FA, the Final Fantasy series article seemed appropriate.
My first edits were to the layout. I typically make similar edits (if needed) on any article I work on because setting up the framework makes future edits much easier. A good frame work means you just drop the appropriate pieces into the appropriate sections. Kingdom Hearts was the first series article to reach FA. Having proven itself at FAC, I applied a similar format to Final Fantasy's sections. Though there was some contention, the prose about the individual games switched to a bulleted list because the prose was far too repetitive. The reason was that while we have to present the information, the information has to be readable, and for FA, engaging. And repetitive prose is the opposite of engaging.
Next came sourcing and expansion. This required researching the topic, which in retrospect, I should have done before I did anything else. I've since learned my lesson and approach articles this way now. My lack of free time makes the researching and early drafting go by slowly, but the actual article writing goes by very quickly because of the preparation. Compared to my other efforts, I actually did minimal research for this article. And the fact that most of the articles about the individual games were already GA and FA was a tremendous help; I pulled most of the sources from the related articles' reference lists. So I really spring-boarded from the work that Deckiller, Ryu Kaze, and several others had put into the Final Fantasy topic as a whole.
Quality reviews
[edit]
Once the article had come far enough, I posted on the talk page to gain input from others. One thing I've always enjoyed about Wikipedia is the collaboration aspect. I think to really craft quality content on here, you need feedback from others. Few editors are one-man editing teams. For that reason, I honestly wish I collaborated with editors more often. Also because it is quite fun and rewarding. Especially when you have a group where everyone is on board with the goal; the rest of the process just magically comes together with that in place. This was one of those times.
With the progress made, GA seemed very attainable. The Prince of Darkness and Nimrand helped clean and fix up the article in preparation for the GAN. The nomination process was relatively smooth. After addressing minor sourcing issues brought up by the reviewer, David Fuchs, the article passed in November 2007. Immediately afterward, I put the article at WP:FAC. In retrospect, I should have waited a week or two between nominations. Quality reviews aren't races, and I guess I was eager to get that star. The reason for the wait is to give yourself time to prep the article for FAC. Too often, the process is treated like a peer review, when really it is more like a vetting process. You should review your submissions several times beforehand to make sure the quality is top-notch.
Once the FAC began, further edits followed courtesy of Deckiller and Ashnard, to name a few. The article improved past its GA condition thanks to collaborative efforts. The only real hiccup was a new user by the name of Turd the Borg (later changed to Trud the Borg). The user posted a lengthy laundry list of issues with the article at the FAC and the talk page. Many editors were off put by the user's tone and behavior, and it would have been easy to write a chunk of the edits as disruptive and vandalism. But we addressed the issues as best we could. Doing so strengthened the article as well as make us look good during the FAC (I think anyway). Either way, it improved the article's chance of success there. The article passed in December 2007.
Degradation and Featured Article Review
[edit]An article is like anything else in life. Without the proper attention, it slowly falls apart (especially a high-profile one like Final Fantasy). Add in standards of quality that gradually become stricter and you have an FA that shouldn't be one. In March 2009, AnmaFinotera brought the article to FAR for violations of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, specifically 1a and 2. Most of the participants of the review quickly agreed. Thanks to help from Deckiller and Randomran, the number of issues whittled away. We rewrote sections, tightened up the prose, added a "Legacy" section, and strengthened the sourcing.
Compared to the GAN and FAC, we approached the sourcing and content writing differently this time around. Previously, we tried sourcing what was already there and applied copy edits to clean it up. If a statement was unsourced, we'd hunt down a source to attach to it. I'm not sure why we did that in 2007, because it seems so backward in retrospect. During the FAR, we researched in more depth and wrote the content based on what the sources said. This is a much better approach because it avoids original research and a point of view. The article's content should not dictate the sources used, rather the sources should dictate what is in the article.
I was very happy with the changes implemented. Deckiller turned the list of main games back to prose, and didn't make it read like the phone book. I remember being very proud of the expanded "Common elements" section. The previous version was very vague and sparse. I think the climate back in 2007 made us apprehensive about too much game details and as a result we purposely skimped on them. Unfortunately, we neglected to realize that the reader needs a certain amount of details to properly understand the topic. The descriptive sections of an article give context to everything else. We fixed that during the FAR to great success in my opinion.
Conclusion
[edit]Being about such a high-profile topic, the article has an incredibly long history of edits dating back to September 2001. So many people have contributed to the article, my guess is because they are fans. With so many cooks in the kitchen, one would easily assume that the article would be doomed to edit warring. But thankfully that wasn't the case.
My time with the article provided me with a couple lessons that I've since tried to implement in my time here.
- Take the time to research the topic.
- Wikipedia articles are intended to be written by topical experts. To craft a quality article, you as an editor must become such an expert. Playing every single Final Fantasy game does not make someone a Final Fantasy expert because the topic encompasses more than just gameplay. Reading news articles, previews, reviews, interviews, books, and virtually everything you can lay your eyes on will. I mention books because this article would not have been comprehensive (and thus not reach FA) with web sources alone. My first efforts at researching the topic where not comprehensive enough, and the flaws showed up later when the article was put up for review at FAR. The research during the review provided a better foundation when addressing the issues.
- Addressing criticism is an important thing here.
- Articles are meant for everybody, so be pleased if someone disagrees with you over the best treatment for an article. What works in your mind may not work for the reader, and multiple approaches should be considered. If a new suggestion isn't better, then you've strengthened the rationale for your original idea. If it is better, then the article benefits. Or even better, a new third way emerges from the discussion that is better than the first two. Don't be afraid to discuss criticism. We're all here to improve articles, so there should be no reason to be unreceptive to your fellow editors.
- Wikipedia works best when you work with others.
- Reiterating how much I enjoyed working on the article, the whole process was great because everyone I worked with genuinely wanted the article to be the best it could be. Even if it looked like someone was criticizing others' efforts, it was for the benefit of the article. My fellow editors here have been a tremendous help in every article I edit, and I've tried to return the favor as best I can. I hope that we as a project continue working together to build the most comprehensive encyclopedia about video games and its history ever.
If you made it all the way down here, thank you very much for reading all the way through; I know sometimes I can ramble on. I'm very proud of the Final Fantasy article, and think it is one of the better collaborative efforts our project has done. Thanks again.