Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/World War II Online

World War II Online

Many improvements have been made since the last peer review was done. Screenshots have been included, sections on the developers of the game, common criticisms, requirements, et cetera, have been added. I'm submitting a Request for Review to get a general consensus of where the article is currently at according to the rest of the members of the project, so that can hopefully be made a GA eventually. (USMA2010 03:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC))

First of all, I think this has the potential to be an FA but.....to improve it, I'd say

• the lead needs to be expanded (WP:LEAD). While I'm not an expert on leads, I'd say it should accuratly summarize the article and have a little bit about every section.
• Also this article will never pass GA nom if it does not have inline citations. This article has no references whatsoever and based on it's size, it desperatly needs some. If you need a place to look for well referenced video games, go here if you haven't already. here's a good place for help as well.
• Finally, as a general rule, you don't want external links anywhere except in the external links section. Put the gallery stuff at the end with the other external links, which you have done well with. As a side note to that, you might consider adding mobygames to the external references. Although there's a heated debate about it for a couple games, almost all game articles have the link to Moby.

Great article, but here's a couple things to work on.--Clyde Miller 20:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The article as it is currently written is overly broad, has few if any objective and accessible references, and has serious tone and NPOV problems. Good luck making changes, one editor now thinks he owns the page and reverts almost all changes no matter how small and has no concept of acceptable policies or guidelines. it's definitely back to a Start class article. Good luck to anyone improving it, it's a worthwhile game in spite of the crap I caught trying to improve it. Awotter (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe this justifies a drop to Start class.

* Overly broad? Could you be more specific? I don't agree, but you could perhaps change my opinion on this.

* It has some references on areas that were requested, and I believe enough to qualify for B-class. Note that B-class articles have some references, but some gaps in coverage.

* Please be specific on why you feel the article has NPOV problems, so they can be fixed. My feeling is the article is relatively balanced with a very large criticisms section, details on launch trouble the game experienced, balanced by a details on the changes that were done to address these problems.

* There is not any one editor that dominates the page. There is a very active editor base, for instance myself, kcmodevin, zayzayem, docvm, usma, and many others. True, I am one of the most active, but there is a large editor base that is willing to work to find consensus on points of contention.

Last, you are an editor, not a peer reviewer. If you feel the article needs another peer review from a disinterested party, then feel free to nominate it.

Warthog32 (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)