Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review

Skip to current requests for peer review

WikiProject Video games

Main page

talk

Archives

Archive index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175

Project watchlist

• view
• talk
• edit
• changes

The Peer review process for WikiProject Video games exposed video-game-related articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and was intended for high-quality articles that had already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate. It was not academic peer review by a group of experts in a particular subject, and articles that underwent this process should not be assumed to have greater authority than any other. The process was closed in July 2011 in favor of the general Wikipedia-wide peer review process. Nominators are strongly encouraged to make use of the "Everyday life" section of the Peer review volunteers page, which lists users who are willing to be contacted on their user talk pages for review participation. The revision history of related articles may also be consulted to find editors to help with review. For feedback on articles that are less developed, use the article's talk page or requests for feedback. For video-game-related editing advice, see the article guidelines of the VG WikiProject. For general editing advice, see Wikipedia style guidelines, Wikipedia how-to, "How to write a great article", and "The perfect article".

Nomination procedure Anyone can request peer review. Users submitting new requests are encouraged to review an article from those already listed, and encourage reviewers by replying promptly and appreciatively to comments. To add a nomination: Add the parameter peer=yes to the {{WikiProject Video games}} template on the article's talk page, creating a peer review notice to notify other editors of the review. Within the notice, click on the bold link that appears to open a page to discuss the review of your article. Place ===[[ARTICLE NAME]]=== at the top. Below it, write your reason for nominating the article and sign by using four tildes (~~~~). Remember to note the kind of comments/contributions you want, and/or the sections of the article you think need reviewing. Place {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page. List the request on the to do list, so that it shows up on {{WikiProject Video games}}. WikiProject Video games is currently in a trial period of a peer review cross-listing partnership with WikiProject Military history, to improve the quality of reviews. To invite MILHIST participation in a VG peer review, please post the following boilerplate at WT:MILHIST: {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/Partner peer review notice|Name of article|Raw link to review|Video games}} ~~~~ Consult the volunteers list for assistance if desired. How to respond to a request Review one of the articles below. If you think something is wrong, or could be improved, post a comment in the article's section on this page. If you create a subsection within a review for your comments, please do not link your username: it is easily confused with an article title. Feel free to correct the article yourself. How to remove a request You may remove to the VG Peer review archive any inactive listings or listings older than one month, inappropriate or abandoned listings (where the nominator has not replied to comments) articles that have become featured article candidates After removing the listing, replace peer=yes with old-peer=yes in the {{WikiProject Video games}} template on the article's talk page. How to resubmit a request If your request has been removed, please feel free to renominate it for peer review at a later time: Move the old peer review page to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME/Archive1]], or the next open archive. Edit [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME]], removing the redirect, and leaving [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME/Archive1]] as a link to the archived discussion. Update the article talk page and the peer review archive to reflect the new link to the archived peer review Place {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME}} at the top of the list of nominees below.

Requests

Club Penguin

I worked on this article, and I am submitting it for a peer review so I can see what improvements need to be made for it to become a featured article. I hope someone can tell me what those improvements are. --Hadger 03:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I might be being a bit too harsh, but if I'm going to be completely honest I'm surprised this passed GA. There are multiple issues which usually stop articles from passing GA straight off (too many short sentences, inadequate screenshots, gameguide issues etc).

• Perhaps most worrying is the lack of thorough sourcing: most things are sourced, which is good, but there are a large number of unsourced sentences which need citations (even if that means repeating a sentence you used at the beginning of the paragraph).
  • Question: Can I please have some examples of unsourced sentences? --Hadger 04:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Most of the "Subscribed membership" section. Last two sentences of first paragraph of "Environment" section. Parts of the "Items" section. 2009 section of "Coins for change". These are the only ones which leapt out at me, and they may been sourced, but the sources might not be in obvious places (don't be afraid to stick a citation and the end of one paragraph and after the first sentence of the next). Una Laguna^Talk 11:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• A very large number of sources used are primary sources - these should only ever be used as a last resort and, if possible, not used at all.
  • Comment Okay, I'll try, but it will be hard, because when I search "Club Penguin", most results are blogs (not just the official one, but fan-blogs). --Hadger 18:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm working on getting the sources. Good thing What They Play is a reliable source (otherwise, I wouldn't have even started getting the reliable sources). --Hadger 00:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• The article has too many one- and two- sentence paragraphs. These disrupt the flow of prose and make the article less pleasant to read. Consider merging short paragraphs together. Example: why do the last two sentences of the History and development section need to be separate paragraphs?
• Too much of the article is an indiscriminate list of information, and too much of it is in bullet-point form (most pieces of info are usually more pleasant to read in regular prose format). For example: why do we need to know the individual amounts Coins for Change raised for each charity? A simple description of the game mechanism is needed and maybe an overall total raised or some similar nice, quick number, but this section can be easily summarised in one or two paragraphs.
• On a similar note there's lots of game-guide-esque info. An encyclopedia article doesn't need to list and describe each of the rooms in Club Penguin. For example, there doesn't need to be a list of the different puffles (simply a brief description of what they do, and if they are restricted to paying members or not).
• There are two screenshots but neither of them show what the general gameplay looks like - such a screenshot would be a great aid in readers understanding what the game is like.
• I'm going to split my issues with the lead section up into multiple points for easier digestion:
  • The lead section doesn't seem to be particularly well-structured. Currently the flow is: basic info (title, developers, release etc) -> gameplay -> development/history -> business model -> history -> gameplay/child safety -> criticism. The basic idea of a lead section is that it gives a short overview of the whole article without going into too much detail. Some bits seem to go into too much detail, while others seem a bit skimmed over.
  • There's what looks to me like a POV issue: the game's criticisms are briefly described, but no positive points made in reviews are mentioned.
  • Going back to the conciseness issue, there seems to be a bit of overly-flowery prose:
    • Using cartoon penguins as avatars, players waddle around, chat, play minigames and participate in other activities with one another in a snow-covered virtual world. - This reads more like a blurb from the back of the game's box: it would be better to say "Players use cartoon penguin avatars" and mention that the game is set in a winter setting (if it's a video game, then it's pretty obvious the player plays in a virtual world!)
      •  Done. I kept the virtual world explanation. See Wikipedia:State the obvious for more information about why I kept the virtual world explanation. --Hadger 04:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Nevertheless, the game has had a degree of criticism, including claims that it teaches consumerism[8] and that some players "cheat" to improve their status. - The same information could be conveyed by something like "The game has been criticized for teaching consumerism and allowing some players to cheat."
      •  Done. I removed the word "some", though, because that would lead to confusion of people thinking things like "which players?". --Hadger 04:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Words which aren't commonly used, like "avatar" and "cheat", need to be linked to the relevant articles (in this case Avatar (computing) and Cheating in online games).
    •  Done. One use of "cheat" wasn't linked because of Wikipedia:Linking#Repeated_links--Hadger 04:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • As a summary of the article, the lead section shouldn't need any citations since all the information in it should be mentioned in the main body of the article.
    • Comment I will put the text in the lead section into the main body of the article, but maybe there should still be citations so people don't argue over citation being needed for the lead section of the article. I will remove them for now after mentioning things in the main body of the article, but if they should be re-added, tell me. --Hadger 01:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Correct - my original comment was unclear: you're allowed to have a lead section without citations only if the same information appears with citations in the main body of the article. Una Laguna^Talk 08:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, I kept the citations anyway (even though I included some things from the lead section of the article into the main body of the article), so I'm pretty sure that part is  Done. --Hadger 18:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• The Reception section seems a bit thin on the ground on the positive reception side: if the game has been "generally well-received", I would expect more of the section to be describing the praise the game received. A glaring omission is what video game reviews say: is the game easy to play, are there any bugs, is it fun to play etc. These questions would all be addressed by mentioning the key points made in some reviews of the game.
• As "Club Penguin" is the title of the game, it should be italicised throughout the article.
  •  Done. --Hadger 20:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• The basic structure of the article does not conform to the standard video game format. When all the unnecessary details have been reviewed, many of the sections will be too small to warrant their existence as single sections. Have a look at Anarchy Online (a Good Article) to get an idea of what sort of structure to give the article, although note that as no two games are identical there may be slight differences between the structure of Anarchy Online and this article.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. Hope this helps, Una Laguna^Talk 19:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for telling me the errors! I am okay with it. Anything to help make it a featured article would be okay. --Hadger 20:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Istaria: Chronicles of the Gifted

I'd like an objective opinion on the status of this article, to see how much more work needs to be done on it to bring it up to a reasonable level within this category. It's hard to find (non-forum, reliable) sources for a lot of the information for these games that I know is true, but I did the best that I could with the limited sources I could locate. I'd like to see where the article falls on the quality scale. Gopher65_talk 04:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've reworked the page a little bit more. I think it's a bit more inline with the basic rules now, if what I see on other game pages is any hint. Gopher65_talk 01:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna start out low. I suggest you should get a picture of the game. I've never heard of this game until now. Also, re-write the Reception section. Take what's in the section and find reviews of it from GameRankings and Metacritic. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Chronology of Eastern role-playing games: 3rd generation systems

This is one in a series of articles attempting to list all commercially released "JRPG" / Eastern RPG games. As these have been split by console generation, I believe it is possible to create a finite list of such games.

At this time, I have completed a large portion of the work that I wanted to complete on the 3rd generation games. I would appreciate feedback at this time regarding ...

1) Layout (although, it should be noted that this follows the same layout as the Chronology of console role-playing games series, from which it was based.)

2) Appropriateness of references (I've tried to find specific review or review-like websites, all of which reference the listed games as either JRPG's or console-style RPG's).

3) Accuracy of data. I have started a my own review of the accuracy of the detail information, but much of the publication information was copied verbatim from the console rpg chronology.

Other constructive comments are greatly appreciated, especially general comments that can help influence my work on the remaining generations. Dawynn (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Z: Infinite World

I have been doing some exstensive work on this this article and I'm hoping that I can push it's status as high as it can go. Sarujo (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to put a GA checklist in here, because that is a good target for almost every article :). I'm heading off to bed, so I will start filling in the checklist tomorrow.

On second thought, I'll make a review page so that I'm not eating up room here. MacMed^talk_stalk 03:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a good article, and with a bit of work it could become a good article. The only things I saw after a quick skim were a lack of referencing in the Gameplay section (you could easily fix that with information from the reviews) and the lack of a review table as used in other video game GAs and FAs. Tezkag72 (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The thing about the gameplay was I was planing to get a hold of the official stratagy guide for this and a few other Dragon Ball games. But, I hit a few snags. Sarujo (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Super Punch-Out!! (Super NES)

I just finished cleaning up and expanding this article greatly. I am hoping to push this to GA in the near future pending any other fine tuning that may be needed. The big thing on this one was the Reception section, as I, for some reason, found it difficult to organize. MuZemike 00:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Development, section needs more expansion and the GameRankings reference is wrong. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note, the article was just promoted to GA. Any other suggestions that can further improve this article as it approaches A-Class or FA would be appreciated. MuZemike 21:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If Super Punch-Out!! won any awards, it should be added to the Reception section. I think it was in Nintendo Power's top 200 best games on an Nintendo platform. GamerPro64 (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Lost Planet: Extreme Condition

After taking hours to rewrite and edit this article, it's finally a B class article and now I ready to apply it to the GA standards through a peer review.--(NGG) 22:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Prose/Layout/Style

Lead

• The infobox is huge. I'd recommend collapsing the release dates section and losing the PC system requirements section (or collapsing it, if you feel it absolutely must be in the article.

 Done

The requirements have been eaten but how do I collapse release dates?--(NGG) 23:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've done it for you using {{collapsible list}}. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• There are conflicting perspectives on this, but I don't feel as though Steam should be listed here as a distributor.

 Done

• K2 LLC should be wikilinked, even if it's red.

 Done

Gameplay

• This section isn't particularly accessible to a non-gaming reader. The first few sentences in particular should hold the reader's hand and introduce basic concepts like the game's genre and camera perspective.

 Done

Development

• That box quote and the image are too close together. Consider moving the quote to the left side, or removing it.

 Done

Downloadable content

• These two paragraphs should be condensed.

Don't really see how or why they should be condensed so I'm just gonna say  Done--(NGG) 04:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Versions and sequel

• This section should be rearranged a little bit; look at BioShock for tips—it's a featured article about a game with multiple releases, film deal, etc. Specifically, I would say rename the section "After release" and have one subsection about the collector's edition and Colonies and one subsection about the sequel. The sequel subsection should be expanded and the film and downloadable content subsections should be moved from Development.

 Done

• The "but no major news yet" clause here could change at any time; consider removing it and including only information that can be verified by a reliable source.

 Done

Reception

• The image here is interfering with the section's layout. Consider moving it to Gameplay; it will fit there if the lead infobox is trimmed down.

 Done

• There's two huge paragraphs; could they be broken up a little bit? There were more than two when I wrote the section, unless I'm mistaken.

 Done

Nobody has touched it since you wrote it for me. I divide it when I get a chance.--(NGG) 23:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

External Links

• The Open Directory link isn't necessary.

 Done

Otherwise it's shaping up pretty well. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 22:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Just looking at the lead, I noticed a few problems. The datespam that is the second half of paragraph one needs to be removed; list only the most important release dates in the lead, and leave the rest to the infobox. Also, the lead is meant to be a summary of the article, with standard practice being to include at least a mentioning of each section's content. However, aside from telling us the game's genre, gameplay is completely neglected. You don't state who the player character is, or what the player does once s/he has control of said character. The lead description of plot could also be reduced. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of Loathing

Good game that I'd like to see get to at least GA status, was working on it a while back but things stalled. Most people who edit seem to be fans so there's cruft that needs to go and a lot of the article needs rewriting for better flow but I'm at a loss as to how to actually do it. Help would be nice. --Danie Tei (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Inline citations generally aren't required in the lead.

Probably don't need a distributor field in the lead infobox, especially because it's the same as the publisher.

Traditionally in video game articles, the Gameplay section comes first, followed by Plot, Development, Reception, and Legacy (if applicable).

You're right about the cruft. Those lists probably aren't necessary, and could be better expressed as prose.

The History section could be combined with Business model to become Development. Community could go into Gameplay. Radio...probably isn't notable enough to be included.

The reviews infobox is kind of small. Are there any more scores that can be added? If not, might be best to remove it.

A lot of the sources seem to be primary or otherwise unreliable.

That's just a quick look. Prose and sources could use some work, but I've definitely seen articles in worse shape. Let me know if you want any copyediting. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 09:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Gonna work on this.  :) Lychosis ^T/C 20:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review articles

The following video-game-related articles are transcluded here from standard peer review.

Guitar Hero: Smash Hits

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Seeking peer review to verify there's no major omissions with this article. (At the time of adding this PR, there is no reception section, but this game came out yesterday, I expect to have this filled in in a couple of days.)

Thanks, MASEM (t) 13:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "expanding them to be based on master recordings" I don't understand how that is an expansion; maybe a modification?
• "four instrument band"-->four-instrument band
• Link rhythm guitar.
• "guitar portions that was omitted in the original"-->guitar portions that were omitted in the original
• "The game also includes the "Expert+" mode introduced in Guitar Hero: Metallica that uses double-bass drum pedals.[3] The game borrows the graphical interface from Metallica, including the rearrangement of on-screen meters for band mode." These sentences could be combined: "The game incorporates elements from Guitar Hero: Metallica, including the "Expert+" mode, in which the player uses double-bass drum pedals; and the graphical interface from Metallica, which includes the rearrangement of on-screen meters for band mode."
• "with the "GHTunes" custom song sharing service already present in World Tour and Metallica"
• "and the 8-player"-->and the eight-player
• "to play at venues at various Wonders of the World. " Do we know what classification of Wonders of the World?
• "Guitar Hero: Greatest Hits in Europe and Australia." Should be italicized.
• "Guitar Hero: Smash Hits was announced in early 2009 along with two additional titles for the Guitar Hero series in 2009." Would this revision change things? "Guitar Hero: Smash Hits was one of three new titles for the Guitar Hero series announced in early 2009."
• "the name had changed to Guitar Hero: Smash Hits when the cover art was released to various vendor sites" I'm sure the name didn't change itself.
• "While the game supports user-created songs through the "GHTunes" service (common to Guitar Hero World Tour and Guitar Hero: Metallica) other existing downloadable content does not work with Smash Hits." "While"-->Although, comma after the closing parentheses.
• The Promotion section doesn't have a source.
• Ref 13 doesn't have a publisher.
• Here's stuff you can add about promotion. This probably isn't relevant, but I found it interesting anyway.
• Also, 'big-box' electronics retailer Use double quotes Dabomb87 (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed all the points above -- though one comment: you can see the names of the venues yourself and quickly see they're not exclusively man-made or natural wonders of the world (or even always one of those, eg Atlantis), so I can't fairly narrow that down further.

Also this PR spurred me into at least getting the basics of a review section down, and I would appreciate a once-over on that as well. Unfortunately, RS reviews are a little sparse (maybe not unsurprising given the "milking" situation) though it has only been a couple of weeks since release. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the article looks good for now. I make some unsubstantial tweaks; hope they were all right with you. The only think that I have to say is to replace Giant Bomb when possible, as it seems a little iffy. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I will note that I don't think many more reviews will be forthcoming, as this seems to be a "recycling" game in terms of gameplay and songs. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Normally I'm hesitant on Giant Bomb, but given the lack of other notable reviews, and that the review is by a noted games journalist (who started GB after leaving Gamespot), it is more reliable than any of the other reviews listed in the MetaCritic/GameRankings. There may be some print reviews in the next month, however. --MASEM (t) 04:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Virtual camera system

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm quite knowledgeable on the topic but I'm not sure how I could improve the article any further. Any suggestion would be appreciated.

Thanks, Laurent (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting article that illuminates something all computer game players notice but do not necessarily understand. As I read, I noticed quite a few mostly small prose and Manual of Style issues. I fixed a few of them, and below is a list of other suggestions.

Lead

• "where their purpose is to show the action under the best possible angle" - "at" rather than "under"?
• "more generally, they are also used in 3D virtual worlds when a third person view is required" - Delete "also"?
• "Tracking cameras, on the other hand, follow the character as he moves." - To avoid using "he" to mean "he", "she", and possibly "it", perhaps this could be recast. Suggestion: "Tracking cameras, on the other hand, follow the character's movements."
• Since MOS:IMAGES suggests starting an article with an infobox or lead image in the upper right, it might be better to move one of the two images in the article to the upper-right position or to find a suitable third image.

Contents

• MOS:HEAD says "Section names should preferably be unique within a page; this applies even for the names of subsections." Thus "camera systems" which appears in the title should not be used in the section heads, and those heads should be unique. Perhaps "Third-person view" and then "Fixed", "Tracking", and "Interactive" would be OK for the first set, then "Implementations" for the head of the next big section.

Third person view games

• "rendered from a fixed distance behind the player character, and slightly above them" - "Character" is singular, but "them" is plural. This is probably meant as a way to avoid the awkward "he, she, it" business, but there's another way. Suggestion: "rendered from a fixed distance behind and slightly above the player character"
• "This viewpoint allows players to see a more strongly characterized avatar" - Wikilink avatar?
• "Games with this perspective often make use of positional audio, where the volume of ambient sounds varies depending on the position of the avatar." - "Where" doesn't seem like quite the right word. Suggestion: "Games with this perspective often make use of positional audio, which varies the ambient sound volume to match the avatar's position."
• "There are primarily three types of third-person camera systems: the "fixed camera systems" where the camera positions are set during the game creation; the "tracking camera systems" where the camera simply follows the player's character; and the "interactive camera systems" which are under the player's control." - Ditto here for the two "where"s. Suggestion: "There are primarily three types of third-person camera systems: the "fixed camera systems" in which the camera positions are set during the game creation; the "tracking camera systems" in which the camera simply follows the player's character; and the "interactive camera systems" that are under the player's control."

Fixed camera systems

• MOS:TITLE says to italicize the titles of computer games. Thus Alone in the Dark and all the other game titles in the article need italics. You can look at this page in edit mode to see how the italics are placed outside the wikilink.
• The second paragraph ends with "The early Resident Evil games are also notable for their use of fixed cameras." Who says so? Since no source is given for this claim or for any of the claims in the paragraph, it might be seen to violate WP:NOR. A good rule of thumb is to source every paragraph, every statistic, every unusual claim, and every direct quotation.
• "One advantage of this camera system is that it offers a rhetorical control to the game designer." - Is "rhetorical" the right word? Rhetoric concerns speaking and writing rather than anything else, I would say.
• "Indeed, as a filmmaker, they... " - "Filmmaker is singular", but "they" is plural.
• "For example, Capcom use this technique in Resident Evil 2 where have they introduced the encounter between a monster and Leon by a careful selection of views that aim at creating tension." - "uses" rather than "use"? Capcom is singular, but "they" is plural. "in which" rather than "where"?

Tracking camera systems

• More "player" "he" pairs that should be recast to include other genders.

Interactive camera systems

• Explain or link "analogic stick"? Wikilink mouse?
• "This is for example the case in games such as Super Mario Sunshine... " - Delete "for example?
• "The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker was more successful at it; IGN calling the camera system... " - "IGN called"?

Camera system implementations

• The first paragraph is not sourced and has a citation tag.
• If you can figure out how to do it, it would be best not to have an image that overlaps two sections. MOS:IMAGE deprecates the practice. One way to possibly make it fit would be to use the "upright" parameter (used to reduce the size of large vertical images) instead of the fixed pixel (150) width in the image template and then to shorten the caption.
• WP:MOS suggests using "percent" rather than % in simple cases.

Constraint solver

• "The role of a constraint solver..." - Perhaps a reminder to the reader here that a constraint solver is software, not a gadget or a person?

Autonomous agents

• He devised a system where the camera... " - "in which" rather than "where"?

References

• Books refs should include ISBN numbers, if available.
• Page ranges take unspaced en dashes rather than hyphens.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Golden Sun (series)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am attempting to bring this article through the GAN process. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks, haha169 (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, but seems like it needs some work to get to GAN. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• There are over 320 GA video game articles, so there has to be a decent model article there for ideas and examples to follow. See Category:GA-Class video game articles - Metroid (series) may be a useful model.
  • Funny. Metroid (series) was actually my model for creating this article. --haha169 (talk) 03:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• The language needs a fair amount of work - for example jut in the lead, in It later focuses on the decedents of the original heroes. I think "descendants" is meant, or In Golden Sun, the player plays as Isaac and his friends as they set off into the world of Weyard to prevent a group of anti-heroes from releasing alchemy to the world. I think antagonists is meant, not antiheroes
  • Spelling fixed; yes, they are anti-heroes. Explained in the characters list. --haha169 (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• The article has several short (one or two sentences) paragraphs that should be combined with others, or in a few cases perhaps expanded.
  • Done. (Except Golden Sun DS mentions, which do merit its own one-sentence paragraph)--haha169 (talk) 03:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• This seems like it needs a ref Once a Djinni on Standby has been used for a Summon Sequence, it must rest a number of turns before it restores itself to Set position on a character. There are sixteen Summon Sequences in Golden Sun, four for each element, and each summon sequence takes between one and four Djinn of the same element on Standby.
  • Done --haha169 (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• The refs seem to be overwhelmingly from the game itself - any chance for more independent third-party sources?
  • Not much. We're hoping Golden Sun DS will generate more interest from independent third-party sources. But the original two games haven't seemed to get too much attention. --haha169 (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Look at WP:IN-U and see if some of the plot summaries etc. could be written from more of an out of universe perspective.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! --haha169 (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history articles

The following military history articles are transcluded here from the Military history project's peer reviews. Such reviews are cross listed between the two projects to obtain the outside view of a military history layman. Video game project members are encouraged to provide comments on grammar, sources, content, etc.

To invite MILHIST participation in a VG peer review, please post the following boilerplate at WT:MILHIST: {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/Partner peer review notice|Name of article|Raw link to review|Video games}} ~~~~

45th Infantry Division (United States)

Article is a GA nominee, looking to get it to FA eventually. Please pay special attention to referencing and sources, they seem to be the biggest obstacle. -Ed!^(talk) 04:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

EnigmaMcmxc

1. I have had a look at the refs and sources they look a-ok to me. Internet sources all appear to be US military or Gov, the one that isnt cites it sources.
2. "After a brief deactivation, the division returned to duty in the Korean War, defending U.N. lines against repeated attacks from Chinese forces" - This is in the lead, does this mean that the division did not have an offensive role in the war?
   1. By the time the division got to Korea the fight was mostly trench warfare, so not really. I clarified the lead to say that the division was "on the UN lines" -Ed!^(talk) 16:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Too many dead links, they should be removed until the articles have been created.
   1. Removed most of the less important ones. How does it look now? -Ed!^(talk) 16:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
4. "Brigades were disbanded in favor of regimental commands" - what does this mean?
   1. From that point, the division contained three regiments instead of two brigades. I have clarified this. -Ed!^(talk) 16:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
5. "On August 1, the Division withdrew from the front line for rest and patrols." - it withdrew from the front to patrol? I think this needs to be clairfied a little.
   1. Clarified. -Ed!^(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
6. "Allied forces conducted a frontal assault on the Gustav Line stronghold at Monte Cassino, and VI Corps was detached from the Army Group and assigned to land behind enemy lines at Anzio, Operation Shingle." - Can this be reworded so Operation Shingle isnt tagged on the end?
   1. Done. -Ed!^(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
7. "part of a buildup in preparation for an invasion of mainland Europe in southern France to coencide with Operation Overlord.[15] The 45th Infantry Division, along with the 36th and 3rd Infantry Divisions were pulled from the line in Italy, however the planned attack, Operation Anvil, was delayed until August.[15]" - i think Operaiton Anvil should be introduced earlier, when talking about the division being withdrawn.
   1. Dome. -Ed!^(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
8. "The 45th Infantry Division participated in its fourth assault landing during Operation Dragoon on 15 August 1944, at St. Maxime, in Southern France.[10] The German Army, reeling from the Battle of Normandy pulled back after a short fight" - These 2 sentances need to be clairfied; surely the Germans facing this division pulled back after a short fight and not those up north that took part in a 3 month long slogging battle. I think it should be mentioned that the Germans were not simply just pulling back but something about their strategy should be mentioned as it seems they hightailed it back to Germany following Normandy and Dragoon.
   1. Clarified that the german's retreat was part of a larger overal withdrawal east. -Ed!^(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
9. "During this time much of the division's artillery assets fell under the command of the 44th Infantry Division" - what does it mean fell under their command? Where they transferred? The following sentance "It returned to VI Corps on New Year's day", is this in regards to the arty or the division - can this be clarified?
   1. Clarified both. The Artillery was attatched to the 44th Divison - it wasn't permenantly assigned to them, but it was sent to them temporarily to support their own assets. -Ed!^(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
10. "The division captured Munich during the next two days, and remained there until the end of the war on V-E Day.[10] During the next month, the division occupied Munich " - 2 points, the bit about VE day seems a bit awkward. 2, the division captured Munich and stayed there but only occupied the city after the war - that seems a little confusing.
    1. Tried to reword both points to make them more clear. -Ed!^(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
11. "Post-War Drawdown" - drawdown means?
    1. As the second grapgh in the section states, "drawdown" refers to the Army's massive reduction in size, cutting around 80 divisions of the force. I can't think of any better word for this in the section header so I just renamed it "post-war" -Ed!^(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
12. "The 45th Infantry Division was reconstituted as a National Guard unit" - the pre war section states this division was already national guard?
    1. The division was activated into the Active duty force from the national guard force during the war. I've tried to emphasize this at the beginning and end of the WWII section. -Ed!^(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise the article looks good and i dont see why it doesnt go right to the FA review now?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I hope to put it up to FA as soon as possible, but first I am going through GA and Peer Review, then A-class, then FA. That way I can absorb as much constructive criticism as possible while improvine the article gradually. -Ed!^(talk) 18:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Skinny87

To me, it just strikes me as a bit bland and lacking in detail, especially for a division that fought through many of the major campaigns of the Second World War. Where's the use of the official history of the division, or more secondary sources like Atkinson that examine the various WWII campaigns? To me, it just doesn't seem to have enough detail; I realize there aren't exactly many divisional pages of a high quality to base this on, but I think more could be done. Skinny87 (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to look for some other sources to spice it up, but I'm not sure how much I can do. What parts do you think should be improved with more sources? -Ed!^(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Jinnai

My only comments, as much has been covered by the reviewer, is that some of the info in the After Korea section might be better moved to the legacy section, specifically those about the 45th Infantry Brigade. Also there is some minor prose cleanup. Its not major though, so for a GA its probably okay.陣内_Jinnai 22:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've copy-edited the article, are there any prose issues you still see? and as for the legacy section, I thought the information on the 45th brigade belonged in the history because it is, by definition, an extension of the 45th Division's history. Which parts should be moved? -Ed!^(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The opposing viewpoint is that the 45th Inf Bde is a separate formation almost entirely, sharing only a number. Unless anyone objects, I will move almost all of it to the 45 Inf Bde article. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 17:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not really necessary. Consequently I've also put the 45th Infantry Brigade up for GA, and it covers its subject reasonably well. I just assumed that, since the 45th Brigade shares the 45th Division's lineage it would be appropriate to include more details of the 45th Brigade since it is technically the same unit. -Ed!^(talk) 18:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, (1) both are formations, not units, being brigades/divs. Units stop at the battalion level, as far as I've ever heard. (2) One is a division and the other is a brigade - how can they be the same formation? IoH makes it clear - 'predecessor organization' - not the same formation. Buckshot06(prof) 18:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Thank you for providing the source! It looks like you're right and the 45th Brigade info wasn't necessary after all. -Ed!^(talk) 18:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Info about them passing on the lineage and heradly is still relevant to this topic though. However that's imo is more of its lasting legacy, ie that a brigade has taken the lineage and heraldry of a division which shared its number.
as for the prose, the only one I'm still wondering about is this line under Salerno and Anzio -- After linking up with the British Eighth Army that had advanced from the south, the combined force, under the Fifteenth Army Group was stalled when coming on the Gustav Line. -- Is the combined force refering to the 15th?陣内_Jinnai 18:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Buckshot06

Was the 45th Division the only one singled out for disbandment in 1968? If I remember rightly, the answer is no. A better answer may be at Manouver and Firepower: Divisions and Separate Brigades [1] which might give a picture with more context. Buckshot06(prof) 17:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. -Ed!^(talk) 18:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sturmvogel_66

I'm a little confused about the transformation of the OK Militia Regiment into the 142nd. Was it simply renamed as the 142nd or was there something a little more complex going on? At any rate reassigned doesn't seem to be the proper word to use. Fix this sentence: On September 16, 1940, the 45th Infantry Division was activated into the Active duty force. Clumsily worded, use either mobilized or federalized. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. —Ed!^(talk) 01:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Abraham, B.S.

Just a few points that stick out:

• Endashes are required in date ranges used in the article.
• The "Honors" section is completely without any references, and requires them.
• "Alledged War Crimes" - the "w" and "c" should not be capitalised.
• I think {{reflist}} is preferred over <references/> in regards to citations.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

All of these recommendations are fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

AHS Centaur

The article on AHS Centaur was promoted to Featured Article status just short of two years ago. In that time, there have been changes to the article, plus alterations to and tightening of the FA criteria. I would like to know if the article still meets the FA criteria, and if not, what needs to be done. -- saberwyn 08:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

For reference:

• The previous peer review (from February 2007) is here.
• The A class review (from May 2007) is here.
• The Featured Article Candidate discussion (which resulted in the article's promotion to FA in June 2007) is here.

the ed17

• Comment - I've just read through the entire article, and I am amazed that it is in such good shape for a 2-year old FA. However, I have a major query: at the end of the "Attacker" section, it seems to imply/say that Nakagawa might not have been the attacker (as there was not enough evidence. However, the rest of the article, namely the "Reasons for attack" section, advances the viewpoint that Nakagawa was the commander. If this was intentional, I apologize, but just a thought. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 16:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nakagawa was the commander of I-177 at the time of the attack, but that submarine was one of three that were in the area at the time and could have attacked Centaur. In the immediate aftermath (during the war crimes tribunals), there wasn't enough evidence to prove which of these submarines was responsible. The publication of the War History Series in 1979 indicated that I-177, with Nakagawa commanding, was the responsible submarine, and all of the sources on the attack I have seen accept this as fact.

That said, any suggestions on how it could be made clearer? -- saberwyn 21:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that information (that Nakagawa was almost certainly the commander) could be added at the end of the "Attacker" section? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to rewrite the "Attacker" section, partly to make the identifying of Nakagawa clearer, and partly because I think that section could be a little better structured. It will take me a little while because I don't have access to some of the sources used at the moment. I'll notify here when its done. -- saberwyn 07:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC) The "Attacker" section has been rewritten, and tweakes have been made to the "Reasons for Attack" section. Hopefully this clarifies things. -- saberwyn 07:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

I've formated the citations. I'll look at the prose more carefully soon YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Guyinblack25

Quite an informative article, and one that looks to have stood the test of time. I haven't finished reading the article, but here are the issues which stood out to me.

• Terms like keel, stern, and draft (hull) should be wikilinked for readers unfamiliar with the topic, such as myself.
• Per Wikipedia:Accessibility#Images, images should not be left aligned directly under level 3 headings to prevent a break between the heading and the prose. I would either right align them or move them a paragraph or two down closer to the most relevant text.
• This is more a preferred style issue, but there are several instances where consecutive sentences both use the same citation. I've always tried consolidating them to cover groups of sentences. That's just me though.
• The "Military reaction" section starts with a single sentence paragraph. I'd integrate it with the following paragraph.
• The first sentence of "Official protests" is a bit confusing with its comma usage. The list of groups involved in the consultation is the culprit. It might benefit from splitting the sentence in two.

I'll finish up tomorrow. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

In order

1. Examples given linked at first appearance in the text.
2. Images dropped down or moved elsewhere in the article.
3. I'm the opposite... I prefer attaching citations to every sentance so that readers know that that particular sentance can be verified by that particular citation.
4. Problem is, the first sentance describes the general reaction from military personnel, while the subsequent paragraph describes a reaction to the attack by the military as an organisation, and it doesn't seem right to strap that sentance to the front one of one. Thoughts?
5. Done. How does it read now?

Looking forward to the rest of your observations. -- saberwyn 23:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Round two-

• I'm no military expert, but I don't see much difference between the reaction of an organization and the reaction of its members. They're different levels of military, but still military. I'd say the amount of overlap outweighs the differences. That's just me though.
  The only other suggestion I have is to expand on the content of the servicemen's reaction. One or two more sentences would be all that's needed (if there's any available).
• Under the "Reasons for attack" section, second sentence of the second paragraph, I believe a semi-colon should be used instead of a colon. "...until reaching the Great Barrier Reef:; her course keeping..."
• Under the "Nakagawa unaware" section, should 'unfortunate accident' use double quotes instead of single? I assume this might be another difference of styles.
• Under "Memorials", I'd wikilink cairn.
• I would reorder the "Memorials" section chronologically.
• After reading the whole article, the lead feels a bit off. Specifically how it jumps right into its attack, then summarizes the article. I don't really have any suggestions, and assume its more just a difference of style.

Quite a fine article. It was a pleasure to read and very informative. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

Round two replies

1. Here's an example of what I mean. You and your colleages walk into work after a good weekend, to find that your workplace has been destroyed, equipment vandalised, etc. You and your colleages are likely to be angered and annoyed. Your company is likely to review security proceedures and contact the police to begin an investigation. That said, I like the idea of adding a few more lines to evolve it into a paragraph, and am hunting for possible sources.
2. Agreed, done.
3. In my understanding of Australian English, single quotes are for emphasis and double quotes are for quotations. Having read the relevant sentace, I don't think there should be any quote marks at all as it could be intended as scare quotes (that may have been my intention when I originally wrote it, but if so, its not appropriate per NPOV), and have removed them.
4. Done
5. No answer at this moment in time, need to have a think about it Done, how does it look now? -- saberwyn 22:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
6. The reason the attack is mentioned straight off the bat is that it is the key reason why the ship is notable. Per Wikipedia:Lead_section#First_sentence, the subject of the article and why it is notable should be clearly identified as early as possible.

-- saberwyn 02:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I only saw two other minor issues:

• Should this be semicolon instead of a colon? "...by other Allied personnel:; United States Army Air Force General..."
• I would add a {{-}} tag at the end of the "Memorials" section so the picture doesn't run into the footnotes.

Article looks great, like it could weather a couple more years. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Saberwyn-closing

I'm closing this peer review as I will be unable to react to suggestions after this weekend for about a month. I would like to thank everyone who has expressed a view here, and hope the changes made to the article are satisfatory enough for AHS Centuar to retain FA status. Any further observations or comments are more than welcome at the article's talk page. -- saberwyn 23:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Archives

WikiProject Video games Peer review archive