Wikipedia:Peer review/Advance Wars/archive1

Advance Wars

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I think the development and reception sections are written very well, with working citations and sufficient references, and the article should be at least a C-Class by now.

Thanks, SCB '92 (talk) 07:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot needs expansion. Gameplay needs sourcing and maybe rewriting. Development is very weird with two HUGE paragraphs. You should make sure that the sources really cover it all. If it does, add some wikilinks to make it look better. Reception is likely lacking. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I found an interview, so I threw it up in the Development section. The long unwieldy paragraphs are all sourced by the single source. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 05:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wizardman:

I'm trying to figure out what style of English this is. I would assume this would be in American English, but I see both that and British English; make sure that's fixed.
Only one game screenshot is really necessary, any more would violate non-free criteria.
The gameplay section is unsourced. IIRC, the instruction manual can be cited for all that.
Of course, citation needed tags have to be addressed.
Bare URLs have to be fleshed out; for references, have titles, publishers, dates, accessdates, etc.
The plot and development sections need to be wikified.
Blake's concerns are definitely worth addressing.
Lastly, keep an eye on some current video game FAs to get an idea of how this can be better structured.

Those are basic things to get you started. Here are some specifics as well:

"The Head CO of the Orange Star army" What does CO stand for? I assume commanding officer, and if that's the case that should be noted as ".. Commanding Officer (CO).." (I see in a later section you do in fact have this; move it up to the plot section so we know from the get go)
There are several quotes in the development section that are uncited.
The reception section varies between present and past tense. (i.e. "Electric Playground called the game" vs "Allgame states"; modify to stated)
The article as a whole isn't badly written, but it could use some prose fine-tuning once the other issues are fixed.
The lead needs some fine-tuning as well; add a bit about the development, as it's mostly release and reception right now.

C-class sounds about right for this article. It has some good points in it, such as the reception section being well-referenced and the plot section being relatively easy to understand for someone who has not played the game, but improvement will definitely be needed on its path to GA/FA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've done some editing: I changed many words to American English, eg. favorite, colors; i resolved the citation needed tags; i fleshed out the urls, mostly on the reception section; i guess I wikified the plot and development sections; i fixed the "CO" uses; i cited the quotes in the development section; the tense in the reception section is fixed at past; i hope i fine-tuned it; i put some samples of the development section into the lead; and i'm sure i made the article consists of prose

the only problems are ~~that i really don't know which screenshot to get rid of: the screenshot of the gameplay, or the action when the units are attacking each other; and also~~ the big problem of me not having the game manual for the game to cite sources for the gameplay sectionSCB '92 (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]