Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Wars: Episode I: Battle for Naboo/archive1

Star Wars: Episode I: Battle for Naboo

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

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working hard on it for awhile now. I brought its predecessor (Star Wars Rogue Squadron) up to FA a few months ago, and I am hoping to eventually do the same with this article. I'm hoping for an eventual Featured Topic! I'm up for any and all criticisms and help here.

Thanks, --Torsodog^Talk 02:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is very good, and I enjoyed it. I made a few minor proofing changes, and here is a short list of other suggestions.

Lead

"As the game progresses, Sykes and the Royal Security Forces fight the Trade Federation in fifteen missions... " - Generally, numbers from one to nine are written as words and bigger numbers as digits. Here, 15 missions (held together by a non-breaking space) would be typical. Ditto for other numbers from 10 up anywhere in the article.
"It was released for the Nintendo 64 on December 13, 2000, with a Windows version released three months later on March 12, 2001." - "With" doesn't make a very good conjunction. Suggestion: "It was released for the Nintendo 64 on December 13, 2000, and a Windows version was released three months later on March 12, 2001."

Done and done. --Torsodog^Talk 14:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay

AATs - Generally, Wikipedia articles spell out constructions like this on first use and add the abbreviation in parentheses. The abbreviation by itself then makes sense on subsequent uses; e.g., Armored assault tank (AAT). Ditto for other abbreviations used in the article.

That's a good point. I think since they are almost never referred to by their whole names in any Star Wars media, I forgot. Changed it though! --Torsodog^Talk 14:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Unlike other medal benchmarks, platinum medal benchmarks are undisclosed to the player." - Does that mean the player never finds out about the platinum medal? How can that be?

Hah, ya! That is exactly what it means. The game NEVER tells the player what the platinum medal criteria is... even after they surpass it. I guess they just wanted them to be really hard to get and didn't want people online spoiling the "fun" for others. --Torsodog^Talk 14:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlockable content

The first paragraph is unsourced. Generally, each statistic, each direct quotation, each claim that might reasonably be challenged, and each paragraph needs a source.

Yaaaa I need to find some reliable sources for that paragraph. I'll work on that now. --Torsodog^Talk 14:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Unlockable via passwords, the development team... " - Dangling modifier. The development team isn't unlockable.

Moved it to the end. I think that fixes it? --Torsodog^Talk 14:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

"to successfully attack it and destroy numerous droids and heavy equipment" - Wikilink droid?

I linked it to battle droid. --Torsodog^Talk 14:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Development

"After it was released in May 1999, the team sat down and watched the movie several times... - Tighten by deleting "sat down and"?
"The game utilizes a particle system that was written in microcode... " - The Manual of Style suggests "uses" rather than "utilizes".
"a particle system that was written in microcode for the Nintendo 64's reality signal processor." - Wikilink particle system, microcode, and signal processor?
"Explosions and fountains also utilize these particle effects." - "Use" rather than "utilize".

All changed except the microcode link. It is linked earlier in the same section. --Torsodog^Talk 14:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

MOS:IMAGES says in part, "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other." For that reason, you should move either the image or the table down far enough to eliminate the sandwich.

This is a little tough since there isn't much text in that section to stagger the two things. I did what I could, but there is still a bit of sandwiching going on. Do you think I could maybe move the image to a different section? --Torsodog^Talk 14:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks OK on my screen now. I think the general answer to your question is "yes", although I don't know of any guideline about this. In other words, if nothing else works, I think it would be better to move an image to a less-than-ideal section than to create a text sandwich. Another option is to discard an image, but that's not desirable except in articles that are clearly overloaded with images. Finetooth (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

MOS:BOLD says in part, "Use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text." For this reason, the bolding in the citations should be changed to italics or ordinary type.

Hmmm you may be right. However, I just stole this format from other video game-related FAs, so I'm not really sure where they got the idea from... --Torsodog^Talk 14:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big help! Thanks for taking the time to do it. I've never reviewed an article myself. Maybe I'll give it a try this weekend... --Torsodog^Talk 14:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]