Wikipedia:Peer review/Advance Wars 2: Black Hole Rising/archive2

Advance Wars 2: Black Hole Rising edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's been quite some time since I've worked on this page, and after a long hiatus I'm ready to work on it again. However, I've worked on some of the corrections mentioned before, and was wondering if I could get another GA review for this article so I can bump it up to that level (I admit there are plenty of flaws as-is, but would like to know how to improve). If someone could give both specific and general advice, that'd be great.

Thanks, ♥puff! 11:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One or more print reviews for this game may be found in the Online print archive. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This sounds like a fun game. However, to have any chance at GA, the article will have to be significantly improved. The Gameplay section seems much too long to me, and that is something mentioned earlier by other peer reviewers. The sourcing is problematic in ways I discuss below, and it may be that some of it stems from original research, especially the experience of playing the game. If so, this violates WP:NOR and by itself will keep the article from attaining GA. These problems are fixable; that's the good news.

"Black Hole has quickly recovered from their defeat... " - Shouldn't this be "its" defeat since "Black Hole" is singular?

The first peer reviewer of this article pointed out problems with the lead, but those concerns have not been addressed. Please read the first review again and try to deal with the first two items. The lead should not include important information that does not appear in the main text, but it should summarize the whole article, not just parts of the article. WP:LEAD has details.

Another issue raised by two reviewers in the first peer review was the length of the "Gameplay" section. It is still quite long and seems to be essentially unchanged in length since the first review. Check to be sure that none of the Gameplay section relies on original research as defined by WP:NOR rather than reliable sources per WP:RS.

Check to be sure that the citations actually support the claims. I'm not sure they do. For example, I see nothing here about the lack of a field-training mode or Orange Star even though this source is cited for "The player begins the campaign in Orange Star, which is treated as the tutorial of the game, since Black Hole Rising has no field training mode."

Citation 6 (used 13 times) is puzzling; what exactly is being cited? If this is meant to cite the game itself, that won't do since the game is what is called a "primary source". Making sense of a primary source usually involves original research. Instead, Wikipedia relies heavily on what are called "secondary sources", such as interpretations published in professionally edited journals (on-line or off) and similar sources as defined by WP:RS. Those kinds of sources make claims that are verifiable per WP:V, whereas original research is not verifiable.

Some paragraphs in the article are unsourced. A good rule of thumb is to include at least one source for every paragraph as well as a source for every set of statistics, every direct quotation, and every unusual claim.

The first peer review suggested looking at FA articles such as Turok: Dinosaur Hunter to see how other editors have handled similar topics. This is still a good idea. Note that Turok: Dinosaur Hunter has a short Gameplay section and relatively long Development and Reception sections.

Some of the citations are incomplete. For example, citation 14 needs the author's name, Scott Jones, and the date of publication. Citations to web sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date if all of these are known or can be found.

File:AW2Map.png should be moved so that it does not displace a section head. MOS:IMAGES has details.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]