Wikipedia:Peer review/GameFAQs/archive1

GameFAQs

We're hoping to eventually get this to FA. Some things that I think need specifically looked at: the lead section, the Contests section (how to organize this information, expanding/cutting, etc), and use of images within the article. Also, I've been looking at Gmail and wondering whether the GameFAQs article should have a similar "competition" section. --- RockMFR 02:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• The commercial strategy guides should be expanded on. Were the writers paid? Sales? Revenue? Profit? Reception? What country or area were they released, or were they in a specific store? This is just a small suggestion, I'll provide more tomorrow. --TheEmulatorGuy 09:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• There is more info known about this, but unfortunately most of it comes from message boards (which really aren't reliable). The authors were paid $500 each. Sales, revenue, profit, reception completely unknown. From my own first-hand knowledge, I know they were sold in some parts of the United States at various stores. --- RockMFR 19:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• You're correct, most of it probably doesn't exist. However, what I've found out: edited by Corey Cohen [1], The Ultimate PS2 Strategy Guide reached a sales rank of at least #418,303[2], and The Ultimate XBox Strategy Guide reached a sales rank of at least #1,035,875.[3] Either way, there is some information out there you can expand on, albeit not much. --TheEmulatorGuy 21:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Editor name added, thanks (unfortunately I don't own hard copies of these guides). The sales data doesn't seem very useful and/or reliable. I imagine it was all taken from amazon, but ranks that low don't give much information. --- RockMFR 21:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think that the FAQs section needs to be expanded. Adding in something about how the contributions system works, the prolific contributors section, or something of that nature wuold be helpful. --Wizardman 17:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've added a brief mention of the contributor recognition section. I'm not sure what could be added about the contribution system itself that would be encyclopedic. --- RockMFR 23:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see how a competition section would work. Gmail is clearly in direct competition with other sites. I believe it's also a commercial service (it sells its AdSense ads), and of course Hotmail and Yahoo also sell special upgraded services as well. But GF is not commercial, at least in the same sense; FAQs are free, there aren't any premium features or anything. I'm not sure how you could say how, say, Cheat CC is competing with GF when both sites don't charge visitors to view FAQs (my apologies if CCC does charge). Hbdragon88 17:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, I agree. --- RockMFR 18:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Automated suggestions from AndyZ's peerreviewer

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.

  Fixed.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.

  Fixed.

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.

  Bug...

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.

  Fixed.

• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: favorite (A) (British: favourite), favourite (B) (American: favorite), ization (A) (British: isation), analyse (B) (American: analyze).

  Just a quotation in a reference causing this. --- RockMFR 21:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”

  Fixed. --- RockMFR 01:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.