From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |
|
|
[edit] Zelda II GA review
Here are the areas to improve to meet GA status and included are FA notes;
- Super vague rationales on the images, say exactly what they are demonstrating and why it is important that it be demonstrated.
- Is TASvideos a reliable source?
- wikilink all publishers in the references.
- replace the gamefaqs reference, don't think they are a reliable source.
- reference 8 is improperly formatted
- The Kasuto reference is of questionable reliability check and if it isn't reliable replace it
- The last image doesn't seem very important to demonstrate that town, perhaps replace it with an image for the gameplay section that shows him battling his evil twin in the game? That becomes a recurring feature in the zelda series, shows up in Ocarina of Time as well.
- Sales data, for america and/or japan if possible.
- expand out the reception section, more detailed account of the games failings, as its good side seems well represented.
- Try to find more music development information and more development information, especially for FA
- Add more references to the experience levels paragraph, the music section, the versions section, and the legacy section. As a general rule, they should not go too long without a reference and sometimes it does.
- check gamerankings for a rating and if there is one add it.
- as a bonus, as it may come out in FA, try to find Japanese reaction at release and or sales data.
- For FA, focus on having a well developed Development section and copyedit well.
- That will get you an FA and a strong GA. Do that, and let me know how it goes :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Just found this in the archived peer review, here are some suggestions as to the kind of information to hunt for for the development section;
- Did it have any effect on the console wars?
- Did Miyamoto take any flack for it?
- How involved was he?
- Explain the process of developing this particular game, like how the story was written.
Good luck! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- I just remembered, make sure to put references next to each of the scores in the video game reception box. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry to bother you with another one, but a great thing to remember is when the game was released and what reviewers were around and popular then. Good job having Nintendo Power, see if Game Pro and/or another then-popular popular video game reviewer reviewed it. It's good to have initial release reaction. Great job so far! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, all done pretty much. Let me know what you think. I'll see if this article even has a chance of going through WP:FAC. Gary King (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Passed, good job! This article has been transformed lately, and you have been a big part of that :) Let's look at what to do for FA;
- About
two one more sentences should be added to the reception section, hopefully from reviewers like Gamepro, highlighting the games pros and cons.
- Try to make sure that the reviews that came out during the games release come first.
- legacy section probably needs 2 more references in it.
- find japanese reaction to the games release, such as what its Famitsu score was, or if it was on a Famitsu top 100 list or something.
- build up the development section and the music section, see the above suggestions for information to find; also, if there is any music reception, like peoples opinions for good or bad, put that in the reception section
- When this goes to FA candidacy, be prepared to switch out some of the references, because some of them are of uncertain reliability.
- Finally, focus on copyediting to get your brilliant prose, league of copyeditors, Tony's Guide, peer review, or just do it yourself once you get the hang of it :) Good luck! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
