Talk:Seventh generation of video game consoles/GA1

GA review 1

• The talk page needs archiving!
• "The Xbox 360, and PlayStation 3, for example" - rmv the first comma at least
  • Fixed --Silver Edge (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• The second paragraph of the lead could make some mention of how the DS and PSP were revolutionary...
  • Added --haha169 (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Newspapers and the like in publishers need italics... (MOS:ITALICS)
  • Done --Silver Edge (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• "According to blogs and rumors" - you use plural but only cite one...
  • Fixed - changed it to The Mercury News, since that was the publisher. --haha169 (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Xbox 360 isn't that much to type. Please don't refer to it as the 360, it looks very unprofessional.
  • Fixed I was only able to find two. I thought there was more, but apparently not. I'll fix if there is more. --haha169 (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• "At the end of first half of 2007, the console stabilized at 11.6 million units shipped as sales dropped 60% while its rival, Wii, gained momentum and Sony announced a competitive price drop on the PlayStation 3;[11][12] however, Microsoft's strategy to boost sales with the release of the highly anticipated Halo 3 in September 2007, paid off, outselling the Wii in that month in North America" - this is very hard to read. Please copyedit.
  • Fixed Did I do a good fix? I made 2 sentences as well as fixing the second half a bit. --haha169 (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• "was released roughly a year later," - just say the date
  • Fixed --haha169 (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• "and with a higher price, than its direct competitor, the Xbox 360" - the commas aren't necessary are they?
  • Fixed --haha169 (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Some references are just URLs; need titles, publishers, accessdates, and the like
  • Fixed Converted them using [1]--haha169 (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• In the 3rd paragraph of the PS3 section, check that refs are placed after commas
  • Fixed I also went and removed all spaces between refs and text throughout the article. --haha169 (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• The Wii section sounds POV-ish... "favouritism" is kinda what it reads like...phrases like "acclaimed first-party franchises" would look better if you'd point to, say, IGN calling them that in the context of Wii.
  • I agree that the beginning of the Wii section sounds like favouritism, and I changed a couple words to make it less POV-ish, the entire section is balanced out due to a bit of criticism at the end. It could do with some work, though. --haha169 (talk) 05:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• "with the upcoming releases of key, highly anticipated, major exclusives like Wii Fit and Mario Kart Wii." - Mario Kart Wii has been released; I've played it (and it was awesome)
  • I haven't got it yet...:( Removed --haha169 (talk) 05:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Who's Jon Hare?
  • Fixed - he's a British computer game designer.--haha169 (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• {{Fact}} in High definition video section
  • Fixed - added 2 references. Might add more later if I have time. --haha169 (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Why doesn't the portable console section have subsections like the home console section does?
  • Well, I find it a bit difficult to include home-console subsections because of less media interest. I could possibly patch something up, but that would make the article over-long. Possible split? --haha169 (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• There's no discussion in the last two sections before the refs section...just images?
  • The images at the end are just to uniform itself with the rest of the "history of video games" series of articles. If the reader wants to learn more about the console, they can click on the link. There really won't be a lot of good from adding more to an overly large article. --haha169 (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Sorry for the late reply... refs 41 - 44 are just URLs, please format. Otherwise, all the above seems good. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 04:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I found 4 bare references using web reflinks. I'll have it fixed immediately. Doing so right now...--haha169 (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

They were 4 references all in a row, citing the same thing. I've removed two, and reformatted the most verifiable ones. --haha169 (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)