Wikipedia:Peer review/Advance Wars 2: Black Hole Rising/archive1

Advance Wars 2: Black Hole Rising

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi, I've listed Advance Wars 2: Black Hole Rising for peer review, because I've recently been making a lot of edits to it, trying to get it to reach WP:GA (from the Start-Class it was when I started editing). It is currently a B-Class article, which is one rank shy of GA, and I wanted to know what kinds of changes and edits I would need to make to make this a Good Article.

Many thanks! ♥ichi 16:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

In the lead, Sturm is linked to a gaming wiki, which might not be good for a GAN. So I think you should un-link it. That's goes the same for Andy in the "New Features"' image caption. GamerPro64 (talk) 05:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

What about the content? Links are one thing, but I'm slightly more concerned about the content right now. ♥ichi 15:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article on a game I have to admit I have never heard of, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself but the Sept 11 incident is only in the lead, for example.
• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but I am not sure the modes (game play) are in the lead
• Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example Nintendo is linked twice in two sentences. In general links should be once in the lead, once in the text (first appearance) and in the infobox.
• Explain abbreviations before they are used - for example GBA needs to follow "Game Boy Advance (GBA)" the first time that appears
• Much of the article is nearly unintelligible to me - I think this is because it needs to provide context for the reader and also needs to be written from a out of universe perspective throughout - see WP:IN-U
• The language needs a serious copy edit - there are places where it is ungrammatical. For example Generally, the player can win by rout the enemy by defeating all of the enemy's troops, or by capturing the enemy's headquarters. It should be "by routing the enemy" and routing an enemy means defeating their troops, so it is needlessly redundant. Another example In both modes, players can customize the match by picking a map (including custom maps) and by changing map settings, such as fog of war, and the funding properties provide.[6] - I literally do not understand what "and the funding properties provide." means here - is it supposed to e provided?
• Four fair use images might be seen as excessive under WP:NFCC
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are 125 FA video game articles at Category:FA-Class video game articles that surely include many good models. I note the FA Turok: Dinosaur Hunter has only 2 fair use images and a much shorter game play section, for example.

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I echo Ruhrfisch's comments about trimming the "Gameplay" section and the number of images. File:AW2Map.png and File:Aw2box.jpg are the most informative, and such image types are often found in video game articles. File:AW2Cannon.png, however, doesn't add much more than File:AW2Map.png. I'd remove the cannon image because the info it conveys can be adequately described in the prose. Keeping File:AW2World.png is probably pushing it, but it might be fine for a GAN depending on the reviewer. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC))