Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Grand Prix 2

Grand Prix II

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am looking to improve this to B-class. This has been given some good revisions in the past few months, and also I have the game manual right now (at a different part of the country this week) so if any refs need adding from it this is the week to do it. I am interested in seeing how much this article can be improved to WP:VG standard, as I suspect it has lots to work from. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 06:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review by AlexJ

I've not done much with VG articles, but hopefully some of the following will come in useful.

• Gameplay section needs tidying up. There's too many fragmented one-sentence paragraphs, group similar gameplay aspects together into paragraphs. The reference to the omission of Senna and Ratzenberger is speculative, and I think would be better left out altogether. Just state that despite varying driver lineups throughout the season in real life, in the game the lineup is based exclusively on the real life lineup as it was for the British and German races (but word it better than I've done!). A screenshot of the game, based on an unmodified version of the game, would add to the understanding of it. A bit of comparison with the previous game wouldn't hurt - I don't think official teams and drivers appeared in the first game, whilst wet weather driving did.

• Development section consists of the following: "The game was developed by Geoff Crammond as a follow up to 1991's World Circuit.". That is all. There must have been something more in the games magazines at the time, I'm thinking details of how long the game was in development (did he start straight after F1GP, or wait a couple of years), why PC-only when the predecessor was multi-platform, what challenges needed to be overcome, was the game based on the previous game's code or completely rewritten? Plenty of room for expansion here.

• Critical reception section provides three unreferenced scores. I'd like to see a summary of their reviews, what they praised and where they thought there was room for improvement.

• Most reception sections on quality VG article seem to include a section on sales figures. Would be good to see them included if they can be found.

• The modding section needs to be scaled down a little, it was probably only experienced by a small percentage of the people who played the game, and it currently has too much significance as part of a general article on the game. There's far too much emphasis on namechecking members of the community, just keep the major developments and don't be afraid to bin the portions that go into excessive detail - if they can't be referenced from anything other than a forum, then they don't meet the various notability and verifiability requirements.

• Referencing overall is a bit weak - the game manual is a good source, but some variety would be nice. Try to get hold of magazine reviews, or else online reviews from reliable sources both to get new information to include and reference existing info.

There's plenty more minor stuff I can see, but I feel the above will get it well on it's way to B-class, and hopefully eliminate some/most of my minor issues with the article along the way. AlexJ (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)