Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WP:CVGPR

This page is for computer and video games that need input in order to become at least an example article, or even become a Featured article candidate. It is aimed at half-developed articles that require further expansion, and you believe the community can play a major part not only in editing directly the article, but also giving creative input.

Before adding an article, check whether the peer review is the best place for it. For stubs, the Gaming collaboration of the week is more suitable; for more developed articles, the computer and video games improvement drive may be more appropriate.

CVG Requests for peer review are listed here to expose articles to closer scrutiny than they might otherwise receive. See Style and How-to Directory for advice on writing great articles. Or look at the discussion of the perfect article and try to reach as close to as many of those ideals as possible. If an article needs extensive work, please list it on Pages needing attention, Requests for expansion or Cleanup. Please list article content disputes on Requests for comment rather than here.

Note: Peer review is the process of review by peers and usually implies a group of authoritative reviewers that are equally familiar and expert in the subject. The process represented by this page is not formal peer review in that sense and articles that under go this process cannot be assumed to have greater authority than any other.

Purge server cache

[edit] Instructions

[edit] How to make a request

  • Anyone can request a computer and video game related peer review here. When posting your request, include a brief description of the kind of comments/contributions you want, and sections of the article you think need to be reviewed. The best way to get lots of reviews is to reply promptly and appreciatively on this page to the comments you do get.
  • Procedure for adding nominations:
  1. Add the parameter peer-review=yes to the {{cvgproj}} template on the article's talk page (not the article itself) to let other editors know that the article is being peer reviewed.
  2. From there, click on the bold link that appears in the new peer review notice. This will open a page to discuss the review of your article.
  3. Place ===[[name of nominated article]]=== at the top.
  4. Below it, write your reason for nominating the article and sign by using four tildes (~~~~).
  5. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Peer review/name of article}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page.

[edit] How to respond to a request

  • Scan the list of requests below, and if one catches your fancy, follow the link to the article and read it. If you think something's wrong with the article; i.e., it's too long, there's no lead section, poor grammar/spelling, factual errors, etc., post a comment in the appropriate section on this page.
  • If the issue is trivial and/or you have the time and knowledge to fix it, it is advised that you make an effort to resolve the issue. If you do so, please make a note of it on the page to keep others informed about the article's progress.

[edit] How to remove a request

  • To free up the page for active traffic, and to make peer review a more dynamic and valuable process, you are invited to move inactive requests to the current archive link. Inappropriate listings, listings untouched for a month, and articles that have gone on to be listed under Wikipedia:Peer review or as featured article candidates can and should be removed, as well as apparently forgotten requests where the requester has not responded to comments (if you post a request, please do not discourage reviewers by ignoring their efforts). Please see the request removal policy for specifics.
  • After removing the listing from this page, replace peer-review=yes with old-peer-review=yes in the {{cvgproj}} template on the article's talk page.
  • If your request is removed, please feel free to put it back at the top of the list later.

[edit] How to resubmit a request

  • Procedure for requesting a brand new peer review request:
  1. Move the peer review page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Peer review/example/Archive1
  2. Edit the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Peer review/example, remove the redirect.
  3. Resubmit the request and make a note where the old request is via a wikilink.

Contents


[edit] Requests

[edit] Super Transformation

I would like to have this reviewed and rated in order to have a clear idea on what needs to be done to reach GA and even FA status. Over this week, there have been massive improvements made to the article. These include the merge of all super forms, to listing it as a feature, to removing all fancrufty comments and in universe statements. Grammar is always worked on though random IPs keep changing the spacing. :/ (last I checked it's two spaces at the end of a sentence.) It's something I would like to see done to all Sonic related articles. This one seems to be one of the easier ones to work with.GrandMasterGalvatron 17:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

As always, the most important step is looking for sources and integrating them into the article. How that gets done is up to you, but it needs done. Nifboy 04:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
In a way, that has already been done. There's a note on the bottom of the page that says everything was taken from the games. Or would you rather have specific citations from certain games?
Search the article for the words "speculation" (and its various forms) and "theory". Nifboy 08:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh my goodness! The page was vandalized to hell an back since I left! That actually seems to be a common problem as loads of IPs want to add fancruft :/. At the time of this edit, the page is in fine standing (I hope). I can't say what it might be like when you read this. Is there anything that can be done about that?GrandMasterGalvatron 17:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games

I think it's time to come for the CVG community to have a discussion about our main project page. I think that while we have a lot of content on the page, to new users the page might be a little intimidating. Also, how do people feel the general organization of the project could be improved? There are some project like Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history and Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography that in my opinion are better organized than our WP. Please provide your input. jaco♫plane 19:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering that the Mil. Hist project is some 75% guidelines and WPBIO is some 13kb, we can start by clearing out the excess. My suggestions:
  • Cut down on the info section and make it resemble the WPBIO page with links in the headers for each major subpage of the project and a short description: Collaboration, Review, Assessment, Magazine Project, workshop, etc, maybe even the talk page. We want these pages to be looked at.
  • I'm not sure what the Goal section is for at all, the lead takes care of that.
  • Organize all our templates into a single (small) table, with explanation/usage on the template itself. Roughly in order of importance: Infobox, CVGproj, image tags, external links, stub tags.
  • The GAs have to go, and the FAs could reasonably be replaced with a link to the assessments. The real problem is that it's in the middle of the guidelines.
I'm gonna start moving a few things around on the page to see if I can't get it to make a little more sense. Right now it's in Wiki Order: Earliest to Latest. Nifboy 04:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
How's This? The fact that several sections are actually transposed subpages makes this annoying. Nifboy 04:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)|
We could probably just use the GA-class CVG article's category instead of listing all of them (Category:GA-Class computer and video game articles). Thunderbrand 15:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking it might be a good idea to split off the CVG guidelines to a separate article. I think that would go a long way to making the page more accessible. jaco♫plane 21:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yoshi

I've taken a look at this article after seeing it on the Nintendo portal and it seems like it's lacking in some detail as well as sources in the earlier sections. Some of the sections just before more recent edits was not very good and I reckon Yoshi could do with a closer look. BigHairRef | Talk 01:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The "Species" and "Habitat" sections need to be written with an out-of-universe perspective. Also, they could easily be merged into a single section, "character description" for instance.
  • The references need to be cleaned up. They should all be bottom-page refs instead of links to outside pages in the text. Giving a list of game manuals at the end of the article is not acceptable; each statement in the article that is based on something in a manual should be individually referenced.
  • A section on how the character was conceived and developed would be very useful and relevant, if sources on this can be found.
  • The "Yoshi's Friends & Helpers" section is just bad. It's a list of characters that... what? Appeared in Yoshi games? Helped Yoshi somehow? It should be rewritten in prose instead of a list, making its purpose clear, and losing the FAQ-ish feel of the current section. It could be, for example, a paragraph or two about how other characters can affect Yoshi, along with one or two examples.

That's all I got for now. Good luck! -- Ritchy 21:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Peer review articles

The following were nominated to standard peer review, but deal with video games, so are also shown here using the magic of templates.

[edit] Turok: Dinosaur Hunter

I nominated this for GA, but it did not pass. I tried to fix it up as much as possible, but I would like some more input. Please see the talk page for more info regarding the reasons it did not pass (and my response). Thunderbrand 16:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 23:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black Isle's Torn

After writing the article from scratch and adding every piece of notable information I can find, I believe it is coming close to standing a chance in FAC. While I don't think it's there quite yet, I can't think of what else to improve before nominating. Any suggestions or comments are welcome. JimmyBlackwing 12:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I planned on getting the article copyedited, actually. I'll also try to expand the lead, but the subject's inherent lack of information is going to make that tough. JimmyBlackwing 17:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rise of Nations

I'd like to help bring this article to Featured/Good staus, but I don't know exactly what to do, as I'm fairly new to this part of Wikipedia. I'd like comments on how to improve the article, what should be added, deleted, ect. Thank you, in advance, for your comments. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 11:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  • This article is a mess. I'll try to give you some ideas, but there's only so much I can do. Firstly, the lead:
The second sentence is pure, unsalvageable original research. Cut it.
Third sentence should be rewritten to something like "The game utilizes concepts borrowed from turn-based strategy games,[citation needed] including territory, attrition, economics." Unless, of course, the statement in need of citation has not been made by the game's developers, in which case you're going to need to be creative.
The fourth sentence is clumsy and overblown. Try "Rise of Nations features eighteen civilizations, playable through [insert number of ages here] ages of world history."
The second paragraph's first sentence should be moved into the first paragraph, and placed directly after the article's opening sentence. Also, rewrite it to something like "The game was lead designed by Brian Reynolds."
The second paragraph's second sentence should be more like "On April 28, 2004, Rise of Nations received an expansion pack, Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots.
The second paragraph's third sentence would be better as "Later in 2004, a Gold edition of Rise of Nations was released, which included both the original, and the expansion."
The second paragraph's fourth sentence should be cut entirely.
Expand the lead to include discussion of the game's critical and commercial reception.
  • If you found that excessive, then I feel the need to warn you that the lead is the best part of the article. The rest is so horrible that I can only offer general help. For example:
Almost the entire article is written in a crufty, game guide-y fashion, in addition to being a review in some places (see Rise of Nations#Multiplayer), with original research everywhere. Also, it is badly written, with a seemingly endless supply of redundancies, ambiguous statements, poor grammar and punctuation, and contractions. These things necessitate a complete rewrite of the article. One thing you should take care of right away is the italicization of every instance of the game's title, or any other games' titles.
Overview, Gameplay and Units should be merged, entirely rewritten and heavily condensed. As previously stated, the article reads like a game guide. For ideas on how to write a better Gameplay section, see Empires: Dawn of the Modern World.
Awards and Reviews should be merged into a prose-based section titled "Reception". Again, see Empires: Dawn of the Modern World for ideas.
Finally, and most importantly, the article has no references. An article for a game of this acclaim could probably manage fifty references before they became excessive. See other computer and video game featured articles for ideas on what to cite.
  • Aside from these, I can only recommend that you find wikipedians interested in collaborating on this project, because this article is, to put it bluntly, really, really bad right now. JimmyBlackwing 16:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 21:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kirby (Nintendo)

  • Personally I believe that this page is due for another nomination attempt; it's developed into quite the article since the last time it was nominated in April. DisasterKirby 05:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PlayStation 3

please review entire article. It is probably rather complete, but weighting of different sections may have to be adjusted. Any other comments are welcome. Thank you very much. --gatoatigrado 02:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • What jumps out at me is that there is not information on how the console was received upon release. There have been many reviews in the tech media and whether the reception was positive or negative should be reflected in the article. Also, once the shortages are no longer an issue, there should be a section on how the console has done in sales. Besides that, this is a great article. jaco♫plane 19:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Can we get some info on it's sales/launch? That is the striking thing that is absent to me. There is mention of the hayday surrounding the release date, but what were target goals sold? Were they met? How many units were manufactured/shipped? etc. --Ted87 21:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mega Man Zero 4

Since I started editing this article, it has been strides in quality. and depth. I recently finished the characters section and I'm wondering where I should proceed next. --Twlighter 18:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 21:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Couple Suggestions:
  • It's a pretty new game, so there should be something out there about development, as well audio about the game.
  • No citations in Minigames and Modes, Characters, or story. Might want to look into that and add some.
  • The screenshot needs a rationale. Look at the coverart, or I have a page about it.
  • The spoiler has no end to it. use {{Endspoiler}}.
Have fun. --Clyde Miller 01:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but one problem I'm having is finding ANY development news. all I have is the annoucement date. I looked Gamespot and IGN. --Twlighter 03:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Well I looked at my library of websites and found that EGM has a preview, an add, and a trailer. Also, Gamzone has a couple things on it (preview, news, E3 trailer). Take a look and see if you can get anything.--Clyde Miller 03:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think game previews help in terms of development news. What's said in the preview is pretty much exactly the same as what's said in the review. Wolf ODonnell 12:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Well I think it might be worth mentioning that there was an E3 announcement, and perhaps what they give away in previews. It seems that unless a game is very very popular, finding development is more than slightly hard to do.--Clyde Miller 14:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luigi

I did a copyedit of this article today, so I think I improved it some. Besides references, what should be improved in this article to bring it to good status? —The Great Llamamoo? 00:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 01:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the "cameos and allusions" should be prosified. The comment about Luigi being a coward should probably include a citation to Luigi's Mansion, not sure if theres a template for video games. There are also a lot of single sentence paragraphs, some compression should allow for a better flow to the article. Jay32183 01:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd try to find more inline citations also. LuciferMorgan 02:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

CVG Peer review archive

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Computer_and_video_games_Peer_review_dc7e.html"