Wikipedia:Peer review/God of War (video game)/archive1

God of War (video game)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate this article for FAC. I'm looking for any comments/suggestions that could help improve this article so that it'll likely pass FAC.

Thanks, JDC808 ♫ 19:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, I think the way it's organized it problematic. You're somewhat going over the same territory by mentioning sequels in the first and third paragraphs, even though its in different contexts, and it reads a little disjointedly as is. I wonder if you could move the re-release info down to the third paragraph, in order to avoid redundancy. It also makes sense that re-releasing in a new bigger collection fits into the legacy concept of the last paragraph. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, in doing so, that would make the first paragraph two sentences and the third paragraph rather large. Would you suggest putting the information that you suggested into the third paragraph, and put the first three sentences of the third paragraph in the first paragraph? --JDC808 ♫ 16:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looking at it again, I see that you don't really describe gameplay in the lead, which means it's not fully summarizing the article. Try adding that information to the first paragraph, and it should be big enough without needing to pull from the other two. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? --JDC808 ♫ 18:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Implemented with your copy-edit. --JDC808 ♫ 00:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References 31 and 36 may be broken or dead. Double check the links. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

31 opened for me. Will replace 36. --JDC808 ♫ 16:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just rechecked 36 and it worked. When I checked it on November 2, I was on my home PC, today I'm on a Mac. I don't know if that would have anything to do with it or not. I'll recheck when I get home and see if it works there. If not, I will replace the source. --JDC808 ♫ 00:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

36 was okay for me just now. 31 was a weird redirect, so I replaced it with the final target page. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good. --JDC808 ♫ 02:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the entire second paragraph in the film section all sourced by the reference at the end of the paragraph? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --JDC808 ♫ 16:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the development section, is there any more information you can find about the time between 2002 and the announcement in 2004? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can find more info. If I remember correctly, I had to dig some for the info currently there. --JDC808 ♫ 02:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to find a little bit more information, including a little on the demo. --JDC808 ♫ 22:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment: the release section is, again, not super exciting. Could you maybe find some quotes from the developers or publishers from around the time of the release to liven things up a bit? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can find. --JDC808 ♫ 03:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit tough finding stuff for this game as Google brings up the more recent games when I try to search. --JDC808 ♫ 17:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, yeah, I've noticed that the few times I've tried doing searches too. Maybe try searching Gamasutra; they always have good info on game development specifically. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]