Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Doom 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Doom 3

Doom 3 is the third in the Doom series, which helped revolutionize gaming and had a tremendous impact on popular culture. Its engine was itself adapted to Quake 4. For this and other reasons, the game is important to the history of videogames and to modern popular culture. However, the Wikipedia article on the topic is falling short of giving the subject proper treatment. The question is, how much better is it than when it was rated as start-class? Where does it stand on the rating spectrum? What can reasonably be done within the limits of Wikipedia policy to improve the article? Captainktainer * Talk 21:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I just started formatting it like other Featured Video Game articles I have worked on. The main thing the article needs is more references, and breaking up the totally unencyclopedic Trivia section. Also, make sure your images have fair use rationales. If you do that, it will definitely be a "B" class article, and you could then push for a GA status :) Good luck! Judgesurreal777 22:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added detailed fair use rationales for two of the images; I have, however, left the box cover art alone. The template describes the fair use rationale better than I could in words, and I can't think of anything helpful to add. I've been looking for more references, but there seems to have been a great deal of linkrot. By "breaking up" the Trivia section, do you mean delete it entirely, or rearrange it into different sections, or prune? I'm not entirely sure as to your meaning. Captainktainer * Talk 22:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

List of levels should go. All that can be contained in the plot/storyline and is redundant. Thunderbrand 03:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that I/someone else should merge the section? Perhaps organize the plot/storyline section by level? I bring this up because other Doom games and a number of other games have a full level list. Captainktainer * Talk 03:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

See Doom, which is a FA and has no level list (although it is on its own page). The plot is summarized without the need for a list. Thunderbrand 03:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I was thinking of Doom II. My bad. Captainktainer * Talk 03:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest more on the reception section, like what was praised, waht was hated, etc., similar to how I wrote the reception for the Super Princess Peach article Hbdragon88 05:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• The lead needs to give the exact date of the game's release, and an inline citation for it. The Gameplay section needs to actually detail the gameplay, instead of just the graphics. The Weapons section should probably be condensed into the overall gameplay section. Atmosphere needs to be broken off from Gameplay and completely rewritten in line with WP:NOR and WP:V. List of levels should either be cut or condensed into a few sentences. Story needs a massive overhaul; I recommend a total rewrite and perhaps 2/3 size reduction (see Halo: Combat Evolved). Development needs more citations, and some more information - Doom 3 had a very colorful development, and this needs to be covered in better detail. In addition, I recommend cutting the subsection headings in Development and just condensing their prose into the main text body, with the exception of "Development team", which could be cut entirely. Trivia needs to be cut, in its entirety. And move Reception up a bit, enlarge it by maybe 4-5x, include sales figures, and cite, cite, cite. By the way, the citation count could probably reach 70-90, but I'd say 30-40 should work if you just want to make it a better article. Hope this helps. JimmyBlackwing 08:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)