Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Zanac

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Zanac

I'm nominating this article for a peer review, because I have some extensive work to try to greatly improve the quality of this article compared to what it used to look like, and I want to see what exactly I need to do to further improve the article.

My biggest concerns are how exactly I should be utilizing references to the game's instruction manual and citing them and wording. MuZemike (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TomStar81

  • Comments
    • First off, combine like citations. Cases in point: 1 and 2, & 7 and 8, & 16 and 17 go to the same source (respectively).
    • If at all possible try to remove the See Also section bu incorporating the articles there into the main article body. I recommend this because "See also" sections usually catch a lot of flak at the higher assessment levels.
    • The two paragraphs in the weapons section could (arguably) be combined into one source, although I will leave it to you to decide if this is a good idea.
    • The section "Artificial Intellegence" does not explain why the AI adjusts its difficulty level; was this to encourage people to meet the goals and deadlines, or was it just to test the skill of the player(s)? I understand that it is a result of player action in the game, but I think further investigation on this point may yeild some interesting results.
      • How about this sentence that I added: "The System's aggressiveness and AI, as well as the game's difficulty, depends on the actions of the player. Thus, the AI can make the game much more difficult for experts or easier for inexperienced players." Does this make the AI system more clear to the reader? MuZemike (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Otherwise it looks good. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Giggy

  • Try easing up on the "and"s in the first sentence... it's a touch read.
  • "destroy the System - a part-organic" - might wanna use an em dash here
  • Lead needs work... mention of reception? Development?
  • The Development section image is kinda out of place... no discussion of it etc.
  • "The NES version was later re-released for Wii's Virtual Console service on 3 December 2007 (2007-12-03) and published by D4 Enterprise." - was this version identical? Any new development info on this version? Sources?
  • Not sure if http://www.vc-reviews.com/ is a reliable source (check WP:VG/S too).

giggy (:O) 09:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, folks, for the reviews. I'll try to work on this more. MuZemike (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)