Talk:Toki Tori
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Low | This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. | |
|
VG To-do:
|
||
[edit] WP:VG Assessment
Good job on the article! Some comments:
- The lead section is too short. See WP:LS. Keep mind that many people may only read that section, so it should provide a good summary. Currently, the lead section does not write anything on what you're actually doing in the game.
- In the Story section, I would like to read how the story progresses throughout the game. What happens in the end?
- In the Gameplay section, it's general practice to not have lists of the worlds and the tools available. Instead of a tools list, which does not tell the reader much, write a paragraph on what tools are and what they generally do, then use two to three examples. The same for worlds: what are they, what role do they play, and just some examples. A whole list is not necessary.
- The Eggbert section misses connection with the rest of the article. Perhaps you could elaborate a bit more on that.
- The "Reaction" section (more commonly called Reception though) only lists the scores. A good article would explain more: what did the reviewers like? What was their criticism? Also, the links there should use the same < ref > tags as the references do.
- All references should have the proper access date information, authors, and dates, listed. {{cite web}} is a useful tool for that.
I'm keeping the Start-class rating for now. Once the above problems are solved (or most of them, or if you want more comments), list it again at WP:VG/A and I (or another reviewer) will give the article another look. User:Krator (t c) 23:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WP:VG Assessment (2)
I think that Wikipedia currently writes everything there is to write about this game in an excellent manner. I propose A-class, on which a second reviewer usually has to agree. User:Krator (t c) 21:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Since you've proposed an A rating requiring a second opinion I hope you don't mind me butting in here. Personally I'd say this one is just under B class at the minute, according to the A class criteria this should be most of the way to FA status and be well referenced, at the minute it wouldn't pass GA without some work. Specifically:
- Referencing is a major omission, asides from the remakes heading and reception there aren't any - this alone would prevent the article being promoted to GA and is really something that needs dealing with for the article to progress.
- The lead doesn't summarize the article, two decent sized paragraphs would probably be needed to do that.
- Reception is too short, there's six very reliable sources in the review box, there must be some more info to be squeezed out of them in terms of reception information without going into minutiae.
- Gameplay is too long, the sub-headings aren't necessary - they're both integral to the game's mechanics. What's currently under the 'Worlds' subheading could be halved without losing any essential details. The tools goes into quite a lot of detail, too much IMHO, a couple of well explained examples would get the point across without listing too much. The eye tool feature is great as is, and would tie up the end of the paragraph.
- Very minor niggle, but there's no authors listed in the references.
It is nicely written, with some filling out in the right places and some referencing I'd give this a B rating in a heartbeat. Someoneanother 11:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
