Wikipedia:Peer review/Toontown Online/archive1

Toontown Online

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently done some needed reconstruction and I am trying to achieve a "Good Article" status. I can see room for improvement and issues that should still be addressed. Any thorough advice to help me reach this goal will be greatly appreciated!

Thanks, NightHawkCanada (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
• 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.”
• The script has spotted the following contractions: wasn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• 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.

• Checklinks has found multiple dead links.

-(t) Josve05a (c) 02:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from LT910001

Firstly, thanks for your edits to this article and Wikipedia. Some comments:

• A list of video game-related good articles is available here (Wikipedia:Good articles). I'd encourage you to take a look.
• This article has a very long summary of the game and its stages. This may not meet the 'brevity' criteria of the good article review (a good article nomination will involve six criteria, here: WP:GARC).
• This article doesn't include a "reception" section, which is standard for many video games.
• Several sections of this article lack sources.
• This article could be improved by conducting a more critical analysis of the game, significantly reducing the summary of the game's content, and integrating several more sources into the article.

All in all, this article probably isn't ready for GA status right now. I'd advise you to have a look at similar good articles for some guidance, cut down on the summary of game features, and consider locating 2-3 relevant and good sources, and integrating their analysis into the article. This may be hard for a video game, so you may be able to have a look at the other video game articles for comparison. I hope this advise is useful and I wish you well. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)