Wikipedia:Peer review/The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess/archive2

The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

A current GA, recently had a failed FA candidacy that failed and was awarded A-class by WikiProject Video Games. I would like to know what is needed to reach Featured status.

Thanks, igordebraga ≠ 18:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well, it basically failed due to 1a (prose) concerns, which I can't help that much with; I suggest contacting some editors with copyediting prowess and promising them eternal rewards for helping whip the prose into shape. Besides that, though...
  • Development - sometimes reads like a history timeline, sometimes doesn't. Perhaps you want to reorganize the block of text?
  • Images - the two left-aligned images just look... bad. One way to put it to the right is to compress the release dates, as seen in Riven, or cutting down on extraneous details in the infobox (like the series portion, it's mentioned right up top in the lead.) Some actual movement could also help. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Did my best and managed to do the second (if the TOC was really large, would be easier). igordebraga ≠ 18:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• The Article is good, and like i said, its definitely A class.. The only few things that bother me are:

• On many occasions, the article states HOW to do a certain thing in terms of what buttons on the controller to press, which, in my opinion doesn't belong into a Wikipedia article, i.e. you can just remove it.. (As with the other 3-D Zelda games, a "lock-on" mechanism allows Link to stay aimed on an enemy while strafing around them. This technique, circle strafing, is triggered with the Z button for the Wii and the L button for the GameCube.) You could include that it's called circle strafing in the previous sentence and remove the one about what buttons to press ;)

• I'm not a Zelda fan, and even though i know who Link is, i wouldn't take fo granted that everyone does.. The first time "Link" (The story focuses on Link, who tries to....) Link could be anything to those who dont know about the Zelda universe.. it could be a robot, an evil guy, you get the point, maybe add one sentence explaining that he's the hero etc..

Apart from that, It's all good imo.. then again, i phail at spotting prose errors.. leave that to the copyeditors :P

Hope this helps a bit! //Yzmo ^talk 21:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Did some work. Can you give me more examples? igordebraga ≠ 18:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Sentence The GameCube versions have two major control scheme differences, free camera control using the C-Stick, and being able to equip only two items because the Z button is used to call Midna if the player is in need of help. Should be removed or changed so that it tells from what the GC version is different and so that it doesnt specify any specific keys..

Maybe change it to "There are minor control scheme differences between the Wii and the GC version or something. Yzmo ^talk 22:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. No more replies? igordebraga ≠ 17:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) We resolved all the sourcing issues at the last FAC, so assuming you haven't added any new non-RS things, everything should be good from that angle. 17:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Giggy comments

• You should wlink Nintendo the 1st (not 2nd) time you mention it.
• "It is the series 20th year anniversary" - relevant to the 1st paragraph of the lead how?
• "but was changed as development progressed" - that's obvious... say exactly when/why.
• "It takes place many year" - change "it" to "the game"
• "on the GameCube as of 31 March 2007.[8] and" - new sentence? Reword

That's from the lead. giggy _(:O) 03:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed all (the 2nd, I removed it but some IP returned, thought it was relevant...). Can you enter the main text? igordebraga ≠ 15:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Taking a random section;

• "the player will be given the option of using the Wii's unique controller;[29] and it was not suspected that two versions of the game would be released - just use its name (Wii remote), and change "and it was" to "thus, it was" (or something like that)
• "Reggie Fils-Aime denied these claims, stating that, across the board, GameCube games played on the Wii would not be compatible with the Wii's controller" - comma overload.
• "Time also reported this soon after." - remove the also
• Magazines/newspapers in refs need italics (say this after seeing Time there).

Generally not bad! —Giggy 08:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha169 A tad bit late...or actually, really late, but... *Current Cite 3 needs publisher

• • Fixed.
• Current Cite 14 requires a check on the publisher's reliability
• Current Cite 65... Just look at the homepage, need I say anything more? Need check on publisher's reliability
  • • Could you name the publishers? Your "ref 3" was mine "ref 10", maybe there is a conflict.
      • I should have done that before. But I can't anymore. The conflict is the addition of new refs between then and now, causing the existing refs to be pushed down, hence the "current cite". Um. Just search the region and find ones lacking publishers/accessdates. Those two are required, everything else can be added if information is there. I've stricken all of them because a quick scan reveals that all publishers and accessdates are there. Keep an eye out, though, for new refs.--haha169 (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
• I think the Gameplay section may need better organization, for it describes in-game functions, jump to WindWaker engine/graphics, displays a paragraph about motion-sensor, and suddenly talks about Artificial Intelligence. I'm not sure how, but it needs better organization.
  • Removed the paragraph on graphics, doesn't fit much. The rest, don't know.
  • Try in-game functions, followed by the Wii's motion-sensor capabilities. Artificial Intelligence is orphaned, and needs a ref for sentence 1. --haha169 (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
• The Reference Box should have least one review that's not in the 90% range (or 89%) per WP:NPOV. But that's not a really big problem right now, since I'm aware that most reviews from credible sources are great.
• "Review websites such as IGN, EGM, 1UP.com, Game Informer, CVG, GamesRadar, PALGN and Gaming Nexus have hailed it as the greatest Zelda game ever made.[9][10][11][12][13][58][59][60]" ... Gaming Nexus? PALGN? Games Radar? Include only the biggest reviewers, and remove some of those cites. The sentence needs to be re-written because you don't say "Review sites like IGN said... unless its a direct reviewer quote. Instead, fix it likewise: "It is largely considered to be the greatest Zelda game ever created, [cite] because (compare w/ OoT)[cite]"
  • Removed, but need to rewrite. igordebraga ≠ 18:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oh, I just came up with a new one! The box-art should have a fair-use rationale template to make it look better and more professional. It might save time during your future FAC, because they most certainly will ask for one. But this is optional. --haha169 (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Overall, great article. My greatest problem is with the Reception section, where problems aren't everywhere, either. Just fix the references, establish verifiability, and maintain NPOV. I couldn't find lots of errors, so that's a good thing! --haha169 (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)