Wikipedia:Peer review/Warhawk (PlayStation 3 game)/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Warhawk (PlayStation 3 game)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I read the GA assessment, and I am not exactly sure what I need to do to move this article to FA. I would appreciate any input.

Thanks, J.delanoygabsadds 01:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Laser brain's comments
  • For FA, you will need to do some more research to get print sources like gaming magazines. The article is rather short and I see that you only have Web sources.
  • Some of your sources are missing information like publisher, date, etc.
  • What makes the following reliable sources? Need information on their submission criteria, editorial process, and reputation for fact-checking, otherwise they cannot be used:
  • Those N4G sources are no good.. please find and cite the actual articles they scanned in.
  • The prose is decent overall but needs a copy-edit from someone fresh, as there are many errors throughout. Examples:
    • "four with expansion Operation: Broken mirror" Mirror should be capitalized?
    • It's ".50 caliber", not "50. caliber"
    • "The game uses medals and rewards, which are awarded for certain achievements." Much clearer would be: "The game awards medals and rewards for certain achievements."
    • The noun plus -ing construction is ungrammatical, especially when preceded by "with", and needs revision wherever it occurs; example: "This update addressed the majority of issues users experienced with the game, with others being addressed in the Version 1.2 update."
  • MoS violations:
    • Single-digit whole numbers less than 10 should we written out (I fixed two but check for more).
    • Use either spaced en dashes or unspaced em dashes for breaks in text, not hyphens.
    • Use en dashes for numerical ranges ("2–4"), not hypens.

This should give you a start. When these are worked through, feel free to ping me for a thorough prose review. --Laser brain (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)