Wikipedia:Peer review/Perfect Dark
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Perfect Dark
I think this a good article with a lot of information. M2K 20:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, it's a lot of information alright.
From the lead: "[PD was released later]... and perhaps for this reason.. [wasn't as successful]" This is basically speculation. Frankly I'm not even convinced of the validity of this statement.The lead seems to have a lot of minor details in it (variable enemy height, the Japansese name that wasn't used). Move those into the main article section and keep the lead to what major sections are about.The development section reads very strangely, due to what is apparently an adherence to a single interview. It needs to be reorganized in a more orderly fashion, with fewer block quotes. You don't need to quote everything (particularly when sources are cited). If you must quote, try to get the single most important bit out of the quote. Right now there are three block-quotes of several sentences, plus a few single-sentence quotes. It seriously impairs the readability of the section.You need a Gameplay section to describe the game in its most general terms. The "single player" section just jumps right into talking about how difficulty affects objectives, ammo, shields, auto-aim, but you haven't introduced any of these concepts in the article. Assume the reader has never played Goldeneye before (or, for that matter, most other FPSs).Half of the "single player" section talks about co-op, which is by definition not single-player."Perfect Dark included a variation of the co-operative concept which as of 2005 is still not seen in other games: counter-operative." I read this and I'm like WTF? You really, really need to explain exactly what makes this different from, say, a Tom Clancy game or Counterstrike.Storyline: Holy crap that's long. You absolutely do not need to describe every event in the game; imagine if the Final Fantasy VII article was written like that; it'd be hundreds of pages long. Stick to major events and overlying themes. What is Joanna's overall purpose in the game? What is trying to be accomplished? Simply dumping the plot on us without making any attempt to summarize it is useless; we can just play the game to get the whole plot.I would move all comparisons to Goldeneye into its own section. Again, assume the reader hasn't played Goldeneye or read its article.Discussion about what individual Sims do is pretty crufty: I would get rid of it.Discussion on the AIs weakness should be cited (if left in at all), I think.Weapons: Too big. Just too big. I wouldn't even bother listing all of them."by holding B and pressing the Z button" - get rid of it. It's FAQ material and doesn't really hold any encyclopediac value.Easter Eggs/Etc: Again, too much.You mention the impact of the game in the intro, but never really mention it again.Find out about sales, reviews, critical acclaim, rewards, and whatnot. Condense all the information on "little problems" or whatnot into a single section.
- Hope that helps a bit.
The biggest problems are just the sheer amount of stuff in the article, and no mention of the game's general gameplay.Nifboy 19:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)- Yay Agentsoo! You've cleaned the article up and out! Nifboy 02:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, the article is definitely much better now. And I'm the who wrote a fair portion of the extraneous crap that was trimmed!--Drat (Talk) 03:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's never a nice feeling when someone deletes stuff you've worked so hard on - I know because it's happened to me several times. But ultimately it's all about making the encyclopaedia as useful as it can be. Thanks for understanding! Any more suggestions for enhancing this article? Soo 08:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, the article is definitely much better now. And I'm the who wrote a fair portion of the extraneous crap that was trimmed!--Drat (Talk) 03:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yay Agentsoo! You've cleaned the article up and out! Nifboy 02:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Is this article close to the level where it could be considered for FA status? If not, what can be done to improve it? Soo 16:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
