Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Video games
This box: view • talk • edit
Main pages
Main project talk
  Talk page archive talk
Project category talk
Portal talk
Project cleanup talk
Traffic statistics talk
Manual of style
Article guidelines talk
  Naming convention talk
Templates talk
Sources talk
Departments
Assessment talk
  Archive talk
  Bot log talk
Cleanup talk
  Archive talk
Peer review talk
  Archive talk
Magazines talk
New! Newsletter talk
  Draft talk
  Current issue talk
Video Game Images talk
Articles
Articles for deletion talk
  Archive talk
New articles talk
Requests talk
Essential articles talk
Featured articles talk
Good articles talk
Task forces
Atari talk
Command & Conquer talk
Devil May Cry talk
New! Gears of War talk
Grand Theft Auto talk
Silent Hill talk
Suikoden talk
StarCraft talk
New! Valve talk
Visual novels talk
Warcraft talk
Shortcuts:
WP:VGPR
WP:CVGPR

The Peer review process for WikiProject Video games exposes video-game-related articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate. It is not academic peer review by a group of experts in a particular subject, and articles that undergo this process should not be assumed to have greater authority than any other.

Nominators are strongly encouraged to make use of the "Everyday life" section of the Peer review volunteers page, which lists users who are willing to be contacted on their user talk pages for review participation. The revision history of related articles may also be consulted to find editors to help with review.

For feedback on articles that are less developed, use the article's talk page or requests for feedback.

For video-game-related editing advice, see the article guidelines of the VG WikiProject. For general editing advice, see Wikipedia style guidelines, Wikipedia how-to, "How to write a great article", and "The perfect article". Articles that need extensive basic editing can be directed to the Cleanup department of the WikiProject.

Nomination procedure

Anyone can request peer review. Users submitting new requests are encouraged to review an article from those already listed, and encourage reviewers by replying promptly and appreciatively to comments.

To add a nomination:

  1. Add the parameter peer-review=yes to the {{WikiProject Video games}} template (or a redirect, such as {{Vgproj}}) on the article's talk page, creating a peer review notice to notify other editors of the review.
  2. Within the notice, click on the bold link that appears to open a page to discuss the review of your article.
  3. Place ===[[ARTICLE NAME]]=== at the top.
  4. Below it, write your reason for nominating the article and sign by using four tildes (~~~~). Remember to note the kind of comments/contributions you want, and/or the sections of the article you think need reviewing.
  5. Place {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page.
  6. List the request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/to do, so that it shows up on {{WikiProject Video games}}.
  7. Finally, if the article is under the scope of WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games, transclude the specific request on WikiProject MMOs Peer Review page.
  8. WikiProject Video games is currently in a trial period of a peer review cross-listing partnership with WikiProject Military history, to improve the quality of reviews. To invite MILHIST participation in a VG peer review, please post the following boilerplate at WT:MILHIST: {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/Partner peer review notice|Name of article|Raw link to review|Video games}} ~~~~
  9. Consult the volunteers list for assistance if desired.

How to respond to a request

  • Review one of the articles below. If you think something is wrong, or could be improved, post a comment in the article's section on this page. If you create a subsection within a review for your comments, please do not link your username: it is easily confused with an article title.
  • Feel free to correct the article yourself.

How to remove a request
You may remove to the VG Peer review archive any

  • inactive listings or listings older than one month,
  • inappropriate or abandoned listings (where the nominator has not replied to comments)
  • articles that have become featured article candidates

After removing the listing, replace peer-review=yes with old-peer-review=yes in the {{WikiProject Video games}} template on the article's talk page. If the talk page uses {{ArticleHistory}}, it is preferred to note the review there and not use the old-peer-review=yes parameter.

How to resubmit a request
If your request has been removed, please feel free to renominate it for peer review at a later time:

  1. Move the old peer review page to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME/Archive1]] or the next open archive
  2. Edit [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME]], removing the redirect, and leaving [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME/Archive1]] as a link to the archived discussion.
  3. Update the article talk page and the peer review archive to reflect the new link to the archived peer review
  4. Place {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME}} at the top of the list of nominees below.

Contents


[edit] Requests

[edit] Blade Runner (video game)

I have changed the article around a bit in the past month - re-organised the sections, added a Reception section, references and images. I am now looking for outside opinion on the article and for ways to improve it further. Thanks, Nreive (talk) 11:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment(s)
    • On the issue of the images; all of the images are claimed as fair use, and given that our current standards on fair use have gotten a lot stricter over the last few monthes I am interested in knowing if all the added images are in fact needed. If not, then it may be a good idea to consider removing one or two from the article to better your odds of clearing higher grades.
    • Image:BR game McCoy.jpg is currently used in a section dedicated to characters, therefore I would suggest coupling his fair use screenshot tag with the {{Non-free character}} template.
    • The fourth paragraph of the gameplay section contains the sentence "Evidence is stored in McCoy's KIA (Knowledge Integration Assistant) and is organised for easy reference." Unless you have a pressing reason to keep the abreviation before the actual phrase might I suggest rearranging the order so that the phrase Knowledge Integration Assistant comes before KIA?
    • The last paragraph of the gameplay section does not explain why it is important to determine if the subject is human or replicant, and as a result it seems a little confusing to me (I haven't played the game).
    • The second character description in the character section end with the line "Her attitude towards McCoy at the opening of the game is playful, with a considerable amount of condescension towards the rookie; however suggesting that he ask her regards a possible romantic relationship." To me, this reads ackwardly; is there a way to maybe rephrase this or trimm some wording out of it?
  • Overall, it looks good. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I've carried out the suggestions made. Nreive (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment(s) -- WP:MILHIST collaboration
    1. The plot section is quite choppy. Paragraph 3 and 4 can be combined. The prose could do with a bit of attention here, as well.
    2. From memory, and I played the game nearly 10 years ago, the character's apartment was a duplicate of Deckers' in the film. Is this worth mentioning?
    3. The quote "This is not a game about the movie, it is a game about the movie's environment. It's about the tension and emotion of the movie. To us, that's what Blade Runner was really all about" appears misplaced in a section about the technical aspects of the game.
    4. Also from memory, but weren't there a number of alternate endings depending on decisions made during the game? This doesn't seem to be mentioned.
    5. The game leans heavily on the Philip K. Dick novel, as well as the film. The novel is not mentioned in the article, though.
    6. My perception is that the game is far more praised now than it was upon its release. Has there been a critical reappraisal of the game? It's worth trying to dig up some more recent articles, rather than relying on contemporary reviews.
    7. The lead will need to be expanded if you're planning to go for higher level peer reviews.
    8. The "Film references" section seems misplaced at the end and should be moved further up. I'd suggest you end with the "Reception" section, ideally with current opinion on the importance/quality of the game.
    9. There is no mention of the commercial success of the game. Westwood stopped making adventure games after this, didn't they? Did the game flop in stores?
  • Overall, a good start. I hope those comments were useful for you. Leithp 06:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the opinions.
    1. I have changed the plot around a bit and will look at it again in the future.
    2. Not sure, can't find any reference to this though.
    3. Removed quote.
    4. Yep, expanded on gameplay explanation of actions causing different outcomes etc. Included 13 game endings reference to section.
    5. Not sure about this. Sure, the game is based on the film, which was, itself based on the novel. The developers stated in the PC Gamer preview that the game was very much based in the film's universe and "the tension and emotion of the movie."
    6. I will look into this, although there are not many articles on the game that I noticed before.
    7. Will look into this soon.
    8. Done. Moved section up.
    9. Again, I did not notice any reference to the commercial success, but will dig around again for info.
  • I will continue to work on the article and look into the further suggestions. Nreive (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Woody (Milhist editor)
  • Rather than re-tell the 1982 Blade Runner film, the developers created a different story set in the same universe and serves as a side story. What serves as a side story, reword the sentence so it makes sense...
  • I don't see Image:BR game setting.jpg as meeting the Fair-use criteria. It is not being discussed, it is being used purely for a decorative, not an encyclopedic purpose.
  • Some of the characters are voiced with the presumption that the reader knows the film and its plot, we don't. I certainly don't. We need a completely neutral perspective, so we need to understand everything without ever having seen the film. So, I think that the film references section might need a rewrite so that you explain the role of the character in the film, then how it differs in the game.
  • They went with the idea and expanded it, calling it "Voxels Plus". Seems a bit collquial to me.
  • Basically, instead of just having one two-dimensional voxel, dozens of rotating voxels were used in the shape and depth of the actual polygon model data, making it true real-time 3D without requiring 3D hardware. Same again for the beginning of that sentence.
  • The development section needs a thorough copyedit: doing all the work of creating the 3D models. doesn't flow very well to me.
  • Overall, a thorough article, but it needs a copyedit: the prose is flaky in places and it is a bit too in-universe in places. Other than that, it is looking good. Well done for the work so far. Regards. Woody (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Xbox Live Arcade

Have completely rewritten this page from top to bottom -removed a lot of trivial/unnecessary information, re-organized the structure of the page, redid every reference, added new info, etc. I think it meets the criteria for good article status now. Would like any feedback. SeanMooney (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Riven

Almost done with the article (at least by my account) and I am looking for comments prior to final review before an FAC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This peer review is now closed.

A minor thing but why is the game categorized as a Ubisoft game while no mention of it is in the article. MobyGames lists Ubisoft as the publisher for the Mac version ([1]), but the article says it was published by Broderbund. --Mika1h (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe what they are talking about is that Broderbund was bought by the Learning Company, and Ubisoft acquired the rights to Myst games, to my knowledge. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Another minor thing: images (I like doing images with these things, they're so easy to deal with yet can add so much) - the single journal image isn't exactly a fair representation of gameplay, although it is doubtless a decent image. I'd recommend getting a nice beauty shot of Riven, a distance shot of the golden dome on the temple island from the nearby bridge, or perhaps an inner shot of the temple itself, something that properly shows of the environment of the game. Ideally shove that image where the journal shot is now, and move the journal shot into the plot section. Graphics were a significant plus point among reviewers, makes sense to include something to exemplify that. -- Sabre (talk)
  • The development section says Myst had a Romantic style, but the reference doesn't seem to support that comment. Are you sure it's the appropriate term? Kariteh (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Oops. I substituted the wrong ref- they talk about it in The Making of Riven, not the wired article. Fixed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay I've just finished reading the article and copyedited what I could. I don't see any big problem that comes to mind, but personally I would submit the article for GA status before sending it to FAC. Users who comment in FACs tend to be very harsh these days, so you might like to put all chances on your side. This is just a suggestion though. Kariteh (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I think I've dealt with enough FACs that I can go straight on with it (I only worked on Myst for two days before submitting it for FAC directly.) Still, since it's all about the prose evidently, I'll make sure to go through a give it a good copy-edit before I submit. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I've just found something: the article is missing information about the audio. Some sort of information + a link to Riven: The Soundtrack could probably be added for comprehensiveness. Kariteh (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Might I recommend {{tracklist}} for the soundtrack listings? I really think we should start standardising the tracklist templates across our scope, much as we did for {{VG Reviews}} and if you go back far enough {{Infobox VG}}. -- Sabre (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

@Kariteh, added in a couple of paragraphs on the audio and just merged in the soundtrack article, as there was nothing there to expand. I'll take a look at the soundtrack listing, Sabre.... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crash of the Titans

I've contributed a lot to this article and kept it in Good Article status for a long time, and I think it's high time we get this page to A-Class or quite possibly Featured Article status, as I'm working towards making the Crash Bandicoot series a Featured Topic. What suggestions or improvements do you think should be made for this article at the moment? Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 4X - Spring 2008

Re-listing this article for further review. Article has been re-organized over the past few months, and reached B-quality status. I've taken it upon myself to reference a lot of the information to reliable sources. I'm interested to hear more detailed criticisms and suggestions, perhaps to prepare this article for GA assessment. Let's be ambitious. Randomran (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's my comments and such from reading the article:

  • Mobygame's 4X definition excludes Starcraft and Age of Empires—but why is their definition of 4X so important?
  • I would remove "Examples of 4X games" entirely, since people will just want to add in their own games. If the games are mentioned in the body, that's fine; I just feel that if they aren't, why does it matter?
  • WP:RS- what makes "Home of the Underdogs" reliable?

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs's comments raise issues which need further discussion. I expect some of the issues may be fairly common in computer games, and it might eventually be helpful to summarise the conclusions somewhere and link to the summary in e.g. the header block of games' Talk pages.
  • There are difficulties in the definition of "4X", largely because of developments in games since the term was coined in 1993. Moby Games tries to deal with these difficulties - unsuccessfuly, which is itself a good indication of how difficult it is to define "4X" rigorously.
  • Re "Examples of 4X games":
    • What's wrong with people adding in their own games? If you're concerned that Wikipedia may be used as an advertising medium, I suggest you should trust watchful editors. Such additions in any case will alert us to new developments, which will help keep genre articles up-to-date.
    • Because it's so difficult to define "4X" rigorously, definition by examples will probably help readers.
  • There's little point in looking for academic / professional institution sources for game-related articles. Game-related articles often have to rely on less formalised centres of expertise run by gamers who know and care about their subject. I think Home of the Underdogs meets that criterion.
    More generally, we probably need guidelines on the use of "self-published" content in game-related articles - forums, blogs, modders, etc. And that's a tough issue, as many online discussions rapidly degenerate into exchanges of insults (Starcraft vs Total Annihilation discussions are very prone to this) but some are the best centres of expertise about a game (e.g. - Master of Orion II Online).
    It's tempting to say, "Stick to reviews and articles in established gaming mags", but I think that's a dubious policy:
    • I've seen very professional reviews and articles in less well-known sources. For example if Gamespot says one thing about a game and Tea Leaves says another, I'm more likely to believe Tea Leaves. If you look through Tea Leaves you'll see that the authors are experienced computer system designers / developers, know a lot about the theory and practice of UI design (one article cited Donald Norman's book The Design of Everyday Things while commenting on the UI of a game), and know the history of computer games better than most reviewers on big-name mags.
    • There have often been complaints about the quality of reviews in big-name- mags, see for example Why video game reviews suck: part one, Why Videogame Journalism Sucks. Conversely, some of the most respected commentary comes from self-published sources, see for example Why No Lester Bangs of Gaming? Philcha (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Archive: 4X - Summer 2007
As a word of caution, because of the nature of Home of the Underdogs with respect to abandonware, we should only be linking to it in an article about the site itself, or if there is a notable (free/shareware) game there and that is its only known distribution point. Any other use of HotU needs to be avoided to comply with WP's policy on external linking. --MASEM 13:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:EL says, "The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources," and I would interpret that to mean that WP:EL is no bar to my using HotU as a source for the facts that "beer and pretzels" is a common gaming term and that 2 games mentioned in the article are of that type. Or am I missing something? Philcha (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review by AO.

Sorry for the late peer review, I've been busy.

  • "One of the best known examples of the 4X genre is Sid Meier's Civilization series, which has sold over 8 million copies." This should probably be at the end of the lead, not in the first paragraph, where the genre in general is being explained.
  • "Many typical features of 4X games had appeared earlier, in board games and in 1970s computer games." Needs a reference. Although, it is preferable if the lead is not referenced at all (provided the information in it is referenced further down).
  • The lead should be longer, and should mention all the important points in the article (see WP:LEAD).
  • The "Definition" section shouldn't have subheaders; the topic is narrow as it is, and the subheaders create choppy paragraphs and sentences.
    • The "Classic definition" subsection should be made into writing, rather than a list.
    • The "Difficulties in definition" subsection rambles too much.
  • "Most games which are widely recognized as being of the 4X genre have most of the features described below" in the "Other typical features of 4X games" section: avoid telling the user to read further down.
    • "However, these features are not regarded as part of the genre's definition, because few 4X games offer them all, and some non-4X games also include some of them. In particular, the " beer and pretzels" sub-genre of 4X often omits or reduces features that are common in the "full-size" instances" in the same section; this is awkwardly stated, I suggest a more direct, less rambling explanation, maybe just one sentence.
    • "Empire setting" is a stub; either expand significantly, or merge.
    • The "Technology tree and research" section contains several short paragraphs; merge where appropriate (they're all on the same subject, anyhow).
    • "4X games typically provide a wider range of ways to gain the upper hand than than most other genres, including trade, diplomacy, espionage, and sabotage. The player must pay constant attention to these and to research and the economy, even if the ultimate goal is total conquest. Long-term planning is vital. This combination of strategies is responsible for the complex gameplay typical of the genre" in the "Depth of gameplay" section. The first sentence is okay, but needs to be followed by a more detailed explanation. As it is, "the player must pay constant attention to these [what does "these" refer to? A bit vague.] and to research and the economy" and "Long-term planning is vital" are the only specific mentions, but are hardly enough to follow it up with "This combination of strategies is responsible for the complex gameplay typical of the genre."
    • "Long playing times" is a stub section; either merge, or delete (giving only a short mention, where appropriate).
    • This quotation in "Micromanagement" should not be given without mentioning who said that (or the website, at least): "A common flaw of 4X games is its ability to quickly become overwhelming from its micromanaging. (Later in the game), expect to spend a lot of time taking care of small details."
    • The "Peaceful victory conditions" should be made into one or two paragraphs, rather than a list. Also, if possible, generalize rather than give so many specific examples (else give fewer examples).
    • "Diplomacy with non-teammates;" expand or merge.
    • "Reduced emphasis on combat;" expand or merge.
    • "Constraints on growth and warfare" should be a paragraph, rather than list.
    • The "Races" section (previously "Racial advantages," I just renamed it) should provide more information; as I understand, this is a very important aspect of the genre.
    • "Less emphasis on graphics" is a short sentence... and not a very important one. Delete or merge.
  • "The fifth X: eXperience": is MOO3 the only example of a 5X game? If so, I suggest deleting the section, and briefly mentioning that a spinoff "5X" genre was created.
  • In "Early years," the list should be a paragraph.
  • In "Golden age," there's too much focus on the RTS genre; the same thing could be said in fewer words. The parts that do refer to 4X (only about half of the section) read like a list.
  • "Examples of 4X games" is not needed; I'd recommend deleting the whole thing (it would take me near-infinite amounts of time to find the MOS page that says such lists are unhelpful in articles, sorry). Maybe merge with List of strategy video games, and then link to that.
  • "See also" sections are discouraged. Most of those articles are already linked to in the main text: add in the rest, then delete the section.

Overall:

  • Years should not be linked, unless they form part of a date (ex: do not link 1996, unless the day and month are given).
  • Grammar can improve throughout.
  • Don't give so many examples of "such and such game has x feature, and y gameplay style;" it's better to be more specific: "Most 4X games have x feature, and some expand on it, by including y gameplay."

Hope that's helpful. · AndonicO Engage. 01:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A cursory glance by Jappalang

  • The lead mentions Alan Emrich as the originator of the term. However, Classic Definition fails to mention its conceptor. I would suggest giving a short version of how Emrich coined this term in the Classic Defintion section.
  • I feel the "Victory without extermination" and "Diplomacy" sections come across as original research. It is not the lack of sources but rather... why is the article making MobyGames out to be an authority on classifying video games? I certainly see no reliable sources stating MobyGames as such.
MobyGames is apparently the only site that recognizes the blurring of the original boundaries and tries to deal with it - unsuccessfully when it was written, and even less unsuccessfully now that the conquest-only games Sword of the Stars and ("RT4X") Sins of a Solar Empire are widely described as 4X games. I'd be delighted if someone could provide other sources that recognize and try do resolve the definition problem. Philcha (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, that is a problem in itself, but you cannot solve it by promoting a site as an authoritive figure when it is not. Jappalang (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Nix the "popular" pre-fixes in the examples section and trim them down. We have a category for 4X games and having the "popular" tag is likely to ensure fans to add their favorites in there.
Agreed. Philcha (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I will! Philcha (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Jappalang (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Peer review articles

The following video-game-related articles are transcluded here from standard peer review.

[edit] List of Final Fantasy compilation albums

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

I'm trying to push List of Final Fantasy compilation albums to FL, and as I've never done that before, I'm looking for some feedback first. I created this article myself, by merging in around 10 stubby articles on individual albums, adding other albums without pages, and cleaning up/expanding/referencing the lot, all by myself. Some outside eyes would be good at this stage. --PresN (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments: After a quick glance, I'd suggest finding some external links to add; like Square Enix's website or maybe Uematsu's since he probably composed most of the music. Maybe add a see also section for List of Final Fantasy media. I'm not sure about this, but you may encounter some problems with the number of images. Other than remove some, I don't know what to do about that. Hope this helps some. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC))
Done and done, I'm hoping no one has a problem with the images since there's one per album, and only in the infobox. --PresN (talk)
I think there will be. There are some guidelines outlined at WP:ALBUM#Discography and mirrored at WP:NFC#Images 2, but good luck with that. An admin removed all the images from a soundtrack list I had been working on just earlier this month.--十八 06:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
If it happens, it happens, but I'll try to fight for it. There's not reason why the images aren't fine- if one image is fine in an infobox about one cd, then 3 images should be fine for 3 infoboxes about 3 cds, and 12 should be fine for 12 boxes about 12 cds. If I started doing limited edition covers or other images I could see it, but I'm not for just that reason. Any other concerns? --PresN (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 01:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The reception content should not always include "with" in the first sentence. Try changing some of these sentences for better flow. The Prince (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. --PresN (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the titles shouldn't be written in all caps (POTION, etc.). Kariteh (talk) 07:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. --PresN (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of F-Zero characters

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've made significant efforts to clean this list up and look forward to get it up to a higher quality. Before I go on to fix up a lot references which aren't formatted perfectly and write up any more character descriptions I would like any suggestions on improvements to the list. More specifically, comments on the structure of the list and what do, if anything, with those one-time appearance (Maximum Velocity / F-Zero AX) characters. Relisted peer review to generate a more thorough discussion. « ₣M₣ » 17:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, it's certainly an interesting format. I have two concerns: first, it needs information on reception/merchandise to really be complete. Secondly, I'm unsure about half the references being from Allgame... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I have never heard of this game, but will try to give some suggestions for improvement, with an eye to what might be a problem at FLC:

  • The lead is completely unreferenced - in a list there needs to be refs in the lead, since much of this material is not repeated in the article.
  • Problem sentence ...which makes the series akin to something out of an American comic book. reads like original research without a cite, see WP:CITE and WP:NOR
  • Article needs a copyedit - one example is the caption The most characters to debut in a single game is F-Zero X which brought twenty-seven new characters into the franchise. should read something like The most characters to debut in a single game is twenty-seven, in F-Zero X.
  • Provide context - identify Takaya Imamura (as is done later in The producer, Shigeru Miyamoto, wanted more ...) See WP:PCR
  • Explain abbreviations the first time, so SNES would be Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES)
  • Who is Captain Falcon? IGN called Captain Falcon "one of the most important and recognizable characters from the franchise".[3]
  • First paragraph in Characters is uncited.
  • Since this is a list, why all the info on Captain Falcon?
  • A model article is often useful List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow is a FL, although a very different kind of list. List of cast members of The Simpsons or List of Harry Potter cast members might also give ideas.
  • Intro says four characters in the first game, but only three are in the list.
  • Are the Original descriptions just direct quotes? If so this seems to be CopyVio and a violation of "Fair Use" - see WP:FAIR USE
  • Small print is hard to read
  • Any reason why tables are not sortable?
  • Do the sources used meet WP:RS?
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hopefully all aspects of the game has been covered in the article. Looking for any suggestions on improvements to the article. Regards, « ₣M₣ » 19:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions to improve it:

  • A model article is useful for ideas to follow on structure, style, refs, etc. There are all sorts of FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Video_gaming that may be useful as models.
  • Per WP:LEAD the lead should probably be longer and should be a summary of the whole article.
  • I am not a video game person, but it seems as if a bit of background might help clarify this - why is it special that Mario and Sonic are together and why is this there first collaboration?
  • Is there any reason not to list all 16 characters available in the game?
  • Ditto on listing all of the games possible?
  • I think the article needs to always be clear whether the Wii or DS version is being discussed, For example There is an unlockable version of four of the Olympic events in the game. These events are called "Dream Events". They differ from their original counterparts by applying more fictional video game attributes from the Mario and Sonic worlds. As a result, these events also have recognizable locations, abilities, objects, and support characters from both gaming worlds.[7][18] The Nintendo DS version has five exclusive Dream Events: canoeing, boxing, basketball, long jump and skeet shooting.[15]
  • Article has some short sentences which makes it choppy when it should flow better. See above
  • Provide context for the reader - for example who are the people mentioned in In 2005, Yuji Naka held discussions of a Mario and Sonic video game with Shigeru Miyamoto.[21]
  • Article seems a bit short, but I do not know what to add. A model article will be useful here too.
  • I would try to give specifics in the Reception section - for example in Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games on the Wii is known for being an entertaining multiplayer experience, having colorful graphics and physically demanding gameplay,[38][28] but criticized for shallow gameplay and having complex rules and instructions for numerous events.[10][35] I would say who said each of these things. Also refs should be in numerical order - so [28][38].
  • In Reception, since this is a world-wide release, why are mostly just the UK sales figures given?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Metal Gear Solid

Previous peer review
Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Lost FA status mainly because of poor info on the reception of the game. I'm sure with a little work we can return this to FA status.


Thanks, Buc (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Dihydrogen Monoxide

Since reception was the issue, here are some notes on that...you can get feedback on the rest if you like - just ask and I'll do it when I have time!

Might as well just review it all. Buc (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Will do when I get the chance. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't the metacrtic review box score be based on reviews, not votes?
  • IGN shouldn't be in italics in references (etc.) - noticed this on ref 81
  • "The game was generally well-received by the media, and was given high scores by some of the most prominent gaming critics." - this is kinda meaningless, as the reviews box and subsequent commentary should give this impression...
  • First para of reception is awkward...basically just listing scores for the first half, then you start quoting etc. It basically needs re-organisation; eg. quote IGN when you first give the score (more than just "incredible")
  • "Further criticism came from the website Adrenaline Vault" - if it's a website, it shouldn't be in italics (if it's a magazine, it should).
  • A lot more general receptive commentary is necessary for such a major game...plenty of VG FAs do this well, but basically a short paragraph like that isn't enough...
    • Can you recommend one? Buc (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Super_Smash_Bros._Brawl#Reception_and_sales; currently at FAC. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Hmm that's a bit too different a game really, and it's brand new while this is about ten years old. Any exsample you could recommend? Buc (talk) 08:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Interesting - Bole, is this somehow related to why you added Brawl's entire reception section into MGS's reception section (without changing anything at all)? I question that action. --haha169 (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Members of GameFAQs ranked it the 8th best" - 8th best WHAT? (same with next sentences)

dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock

Previous peer review
Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it as a FAC soon. Gary King (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • Not sure on shacknews as a source. What makes this a reliable source?
  • Same for Gaming Target?
  • Same for Ultimate Guitar Archive? (note I'm NOT a guitarist at all).
  • LIkewise Bit-tech?
  • The kotaku refs, what makes the authors well known in their field?
  • The joystiq refs, same thing.
  • The YouTube ref, what makes IT reliable? It doesn't appear to be from the developers, at least from the bibliography. (Note I don't dare try to view the file over my current connection, it doesn't have the bandwith).
  • http://lawofthegame.blogspot.com/2007/10/guitar-hero-iii-problems-with.html looks like a blog? What makes this reliable?
  • http://forums.xbox-scene.com/index.php?showtopic=628006 looks like a forum post? What makes this reliable?
Otherwise look pretty decent. 14:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Shacknews is considered reliable by WP:VG/S. The last three refs you brought up I've already marked as unreliable with {{rs}} so I will work on those later when I find suitable references. Gary King (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gazimoff (talk · contribs)

  • infobox
    • Image:Guitar-hero-iii-cover-image.jpg needs a full url to the image source and replacability information
    • Release dates need citations
    • System requirements for PC version might be an idea.
  • Lead
    • what do you mean by third full title/fourth overall?
    • What do you mean by master tracks?
    • You mention that co-op career mode is new, but you don't mention battle mode as new as well. Is there a reason for this?
  • Gameplay
    • Four note chord - what is a rhythm guitar track? What do you mean by expert difficulty? It might be an idea to rearrange this section so that the standard gameplay elements are introduced and summarised first, before moving on to variations and changes for this version.
    • when released (by tilting the guitar controller - what is a player's mutiplier? Mention the use of score multipliers earlier on. Also, suggest starting this as a new sentence instead of a semicolon.
    • Co-op career mode - I'd consider merging this into Career merge. Make note of the fact that this is new to GH3 - you've mentioned it in your lead yet not talked about it here. Is this available through online play?
    • Battle mode - If you don't merge the two career modes together, I'd suggest merging the two multiplayer modes, as they are small sections on their own. You also mention Rockl Meter here - is this the same as the performance meter mentioned earlier? If so, explain it earlier on. Also, the attack can be caticated by tilting the guiar and pressing a button, which button is not important. Is network play the same as online play - if so, be consistent.
    • Image:Guitar-hero-3-gameplay.jpg needs full URL source and updated replacability - there's no free use equivalent. Beef up purpose - what are you trying to show to the reader that can't be done through text?
    • Wii exclusive features - I'd consider moving this into development instead of gameplay - it was a series of issues faced when the game was being developed, not things that intrinsically affect gameplay. Also, source needs to be found for the Wii 'miss' sounds and remastered disc
    • Characters - explain unlocking characters. Can a source be found with the info on characters, including variants for the different platforms.
    • Image:Gh3_bret.jpgneeds a replacability reason in rationale. Also, the rationale states it's to identify the use of a singer's likeness, yet the resolution is so low it's difficult to make him out. Is an alternative image available, or a crop of an existing one?
  • Development
    • Slash being unlocked, reword to avoid VG jargon.
    • Tom Morello is a boss - If possible avoid videogame jargon
    • I'd look at getting a copyedit for this, as there's a large number of fragmented paragraphs. The Technical Issues section should probably be merged into Reception, as it's stating that poor implementation negatively impacted how the game was recieved.
  • Soundtrack - move above Development
  • Reception
    • Bulk out with info from Technical Issues, earlier
    • Most critics have also praised the soundtrack - sounds weasaly, remove Most and add a source
    • Focus on what the feedback was and why it was given - the sources will tell the reader who said it. It also makes the section much easier to follow and more understandable.
    • Legacy - addon kits and accessories are availble for the controllers, downloadable content, Include this if possible.

That's all I can identify for now. I hope it's of use to you. I would strongly reccomend a copyedit to ensure that the article is readable and flows well. Gazimoff WriteRead 18:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mario Kart Wii

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to get some creative comments about what to improve on the article. This is my first peer review, and I'm a major contributor to the article.

Thanks, Thornstrom (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Refernces 16, 33, and 37 aren't properly cited. Epass (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I will assume you want to go for GA. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • A model article is useful for ideas on style, structure, etc. I note that there are numerous FAs at WikiProject Nintendo. Super Mario 64 is FA and may be useful as a model.
    • Thanks for the advice.
  • The lead needs to be expanded to meet the criteria at WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb is that anything in a header should be mentioned in the lead somehow. So Reception and Sales do not seem to be in the lead, for example.
    • Added comments about sales and reception.
  • Since this is part of the Mario Kart series, this should first be mentioned and linked more clearly in the second sentence of the lead, not the second sentence of the second lead paragraph. i.e. It is the sixth installment in the Mario Kart series (not including the two arcade games) and the second to use Nintendo's free online service.
    • Fixed.
  • Perhaps rewrite the current last sentence of the lead to something like Unlike more realistic racing games, Mario Kart Wii features less realistic physics, and the use of various weapons and or items to achieve victory.
    • Yes, that sounds better.
  • In Gameplay this is unclear In Mario Kart Wii, the player(s) can choose any one of up to 24 unique characters to operate their kart, which are separated into three weight classes. Are the characters divided into three weight classes or are the karts? Seems like the characters, but not sure.
    • Very true. Fixed.
  • Last four sentences of first paragraph in Gameplay are unreferenced. I also note that references come after punctuation and are typically at the end of a sentence.
    • Added references. Also, all refs are now after punctuation.
  • I think "150cc" should be "150 cc"
    • Not sure about this.
  • Are there four modes of play or five - do the two Battle Modes count as one mode or two? Also Versus mode is identical to Grand Prix... can't be true - identical means exactly the same, and they are not.
    • Fixed.
  • Second paragraph in Game modes is uncited
    • Fixed.
  • Article could use a copyedit
    • Yes, probably :)
  • References are not formatted properly - for example internet refs should have url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. {{cite web}} is useful here, as are the other cite templates.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chrono (series)

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was made GA a while ago, I have tried to beef it up a little, and would love to get it to Featured Status. What separates this from that? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I always thought Chrono Break should be merged in this article since it deals with the future of the series rather than a precise game, but I'm not sure about merging two GAs together... Kariteh (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I had that thought recently, that it would be a nice big section in a featured article about the series....until it comes out :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I would not merge two Good Articles without a RfC and prominent notices on each article's talk page, as well as notices to all the editors that made major contributions to each article (over 10 edits?). Since the goal is FA, I will review from that point of view. While this is a good article in more ways than one, it has some ways to go to FA. Here are suggestions for improvement:

  • The lead is too short for the length of article (and I have not seen a recent FA with a one paragraph lead). My rule of thumb is that any header should be mentioned in the lead in some way, and nothing should be in the lead only. See WP:LEAD
  • Awkward sentence: As of March 31, 2003, Chrono Trigger was, with 2.65 million units, Square Enix's 12th best-selling game (based on copies shipped); Chrono Cross was, with 1.5 million units, the 24th.[1] First are there more recent sales figures than 2003? Second, how about wording it more like: As of March 31, 2003, Chrono Trigger was Square Enix's 12th best-selling game (with 2.65 million units shipped), and Chrono Cross was 24th with 1.5 million units.[1]?
  • Has to be a better way to say this about the "same staff" too: the "Dream Team" members did not participate in Chrono Cross, the game was developed mostly by the same staff as the first installment.[6]
  • Missing word? perhaps Chrono Trigger was the first [game] for which he had served as composer.
  • The game descriptions seem too short to me - also try emphasize connections between games since this article is about the series.
  • This sentence would get ripped to shreds at FAC: It is regarded today as one of the greatest games ever made.[13] Say who regards it (the ref gives the publisher, but when I looked the author's name is also given). If there are other examples like this, specifics on attribution are always better than generalities.
  • Per WP:WEIGHT the section "Dimensional Adventure Numa Monjar" seems too long and detailed compared with the rest of the article. There is more on a 16 minute promotional film than there is on the games it was made to promote.
  • I think "humorous" is meant instead of "humoristic"
  • A copy edit would be useful here - can also try to read the article aloud.
  • I am not familiar with games and their sources - make sure before FAC that all sources cited meet WP:RS
  • Finally, I would find a model FA on games and use that for ideas, style, etc. While not FA, I reviewed the Halo (series) article recently and it seems a bit more developed in some aspects than this article and may provide some ideas.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver

Previous peer review
Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has already had a peer review before. Since then it has made tremendous jumps in terms of quality, and is now well-sourced, well-written and well-structured. I personally think it is ready for a Good Article nomination, but before I go so far I'd like any more advice on improving its quality even further.

With the exception of a user who added in the mythology section today, I'm largely the only editor working on the page, so if there's also anyone else who wants to work on the page to fix things like grammar, tone, prose, etc, please help because I'm not so well-versed in those areas.

Thanks, The Clawed One (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver/archive2.

[edit] Super Smash Bros. Brawl

Previous peer review
Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am still pushing for FA status, and that failed FAC only made the article so much better. I am working on finding suitable replacements for the last two images on the article, but in the meantime, any kind of comments, questions, or issues are welcome. Please, tell me everything you've got! haha169 (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dihydrogen Monoxide

Here I am, as promised! :)

  • "video fighting games" - "fighting video games" is better IMO
  • "collaborated within a rented Tokyo office and worked on creating Brawl, which was formally released in Japan on 31 January 2008" --> "collaborated on Brawl at a rented Tokyo office. The game was released in Japan on..." (and then change "the game" to "it" (or something) in next sentence)
  • "This installment" --> "Brawl"
  • "It also supports multiplayer battles" - Brawl, or single player? Obvious but clarify.
  • "noticed Brawl's "spectacular" soundtrack, "spanning a generous swath of gaming history"." - how do you notice a soundtrack? Commented on?
    In particular" - there is no context for the in particular here, so it sounds awkward...
  • "for a total of four possible control styles." - this can be counted, you don't need to say it...
  • "In addition to the standard multiplayer mode, Super Smash Bros. Brawl" - prior to this it's always referred to as Brawl...be consistent (also check Melee vs. Super Smash Bros. Melee throughout)
  • "allowing players to relive defining moments of the characters' pasts." - example?
  • "At the pre-E3 2005 press conference, the president of Nintendo, Satoru Iwata," - needs less commas..."...Nintendo president Saturo Iwata..." would be better
  • "As far as Wi-Fi play is concerned" - sounds awkward when the rest is in past tense
  • "Solid Snake is the first third-party character to make an appearance in a Smash Bros. game." - italics for Smash Bros. please
  • "Subspace Emissary adventure mode. He also described the graphics as "an enhanced version of Melee" - SE italics not needed, nor is Melee wlink
  • "and 1.61 million units total as of 31 March 2008" - by this stage I've forgotten the release date, so this lacks context...not sure how to solve it, any ideas?

Hope this helps. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 03:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed all those problems. Thank you for your time in reviewing this! So many minor problems...that was the issue on the FAC. --haha169 (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

Previous peer review
Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because…

A current GA, recently had a failed FA candidacy that failed and was awarded A-class by WikiProject Video Games. I would like to know what is needed to reach Featured status.

Thanks, igordebraga ≠ 18:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, it basically failed due to 1a (prose) concerns, which I can't help that much with; I suggest contacting some editors with copyediting prowess and promising them eternal rewards for helping whip the prose into shape. Besides that, though...
    • Development - sometimes reads like a history timeline, sometimes doesn't. Perhaps you want to reorganize the block of text?
    • Images - the two left-aligned images just look... bad. One way to put it to the right is to compress the release dates, as seen in Riven, or cutting down on extraneous details in the infobox (like the series portion, it's mentioned right up top in the lead.) Some actual movement could also help. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Did my best and managed to do the second (if the TOC was really large, would be easier). igordebraga ≠ 18:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The Article is good, and like i said, its definitely A class.. The only few things that bother me are:
  • On many occasions, the article states HOW to do a certain thing in terms of what buttons on the controller to press, which, in my opinion doesn't belong into a Wikipedia article, i.e. you can just remove it.. (As with the other 3-D Zelda games, a "lock-on" mechanism allows Link to stay aimed on an enemy while strafing around them. This technique, circle strafing, is triggered with the Z button for the Wii and the L button for the GameCube.) You could include that it's called circle strafing in the previous sentence and remove the one about what buttons to press ;)
  • I'm not a Zelda fan, and even though i know who Link is, i wouldn't take fo granted that everyone does.. The first time "Link" (The story focuses on Link, who tries to....) Link could be anything to those who dont know about the Zelda universe.. it could be a robot, an evil guy, you get the point, maybe add one sentence explaining that he's the hero etc..

Apart from that, It's all good imo.. then again, i phail at spotting prose errors.. leave that to the copyeditors :P

Hope this helps a bit! //Yzmo talk 21:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Did some work. Can you give me more examples? igordebraga ≠ 18:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Sentence The GameCube versions have two major control scheme differences, free camera control using the C-Stick, and being able to equip only two items because the Z button is used to call Midna if the player is in need of help. Should be removed or changed so that it tells from what the GC version is different and so that it doesnt specify any specific keys..

Maybe change it to "There are minor control scheme differences between the Wii and the GC version or something. Yzmo talk 22:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Myst III: Exile

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to take this to FAC sooner rather than later. Mostly, I'd like help or suggestions with prose, since that's my Achilles heel, but of course any other comments are appreciated. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I dunno... other articles with OTRS from Ubi haven't (such as Image:Tcr6vcov11.jpg.) I believe Ubisoft only allowed screenshots in the permissions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments on lead from User:BuddingJournalist
    • Spot the simple grammatical error in the first sentence. Usually, I'd fix this myself, but I think it's a good example of why re-reading your writing over and over is a good idea.
    • "console versions were later released." Think about where the emphasis is and where it should be, and then see if rearranging words might bring about a stronger construction.
      • What I was trying to imply here (perhaps I was unclear) was that "released later" seemed to me to be a more logical ordering. The rest of your changes look good! BuddingJournalist 22:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "The Stranger pursues the thief in an attempt to take back the Age." Unclear to me (someone who has never played the game). Attempt to take back the book perhaps?
    • "after a rigorous presentation." What does that mean?
    • "sought to develop an artistic, more contained approach to puzzles and Ages than Riven had" The placement of "more" means that the "artistic" is out of place, since it's not being compared. What does "contained" mean?
    • "as time wore on" -> too informal and in-universe. You're using "more" again, but it's unclear if this is a comparison to the previous games or whether the "more" is connected to the "as time wore on" concept. BuddingJournalist 22:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

WikiProject Video games Peer review archive

This project article is part of WikiProject Video games. Click here for more information.
This project article is part of WikiProject Video games. Click here for more information.
Languages