Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Blaster Master

Blaster Master

I'd like to get somebody to start looking at this article for completeness, grammar/style, and formatting as this article approaches B-Class and hopefully GA in the future. I do realize there is a small tract of still-unverifiable information about any of the details past release information of the Japanese equivalent Chô Wakusei Senki Metafight, and I have requested that anyone try to come up with something on the talk page. –MuZemike 20:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the main things which stood out for me:

I think the lead section needs restructuring - it doesn't flow very well. The flow current goes: basic info (release dates/names etc) -> brief mention of plot -> more basic info -> plot -> gameplay -> reception -> legacy. I think the main issue I have is that brief mention of the original game having a different plot in the middle of the release dates/names info. The flow could probably be improved further by tweaking the paragraphs e.g. the plot information would probably sit better if it wasn't at the end of the first paragraph. There's no set formula for the order of info in a lead section - just make it flow and seem logical.
- I cut down the lead a little bit and cleaned up the prose (as I did with the rest of the article just now). I moved the plot portion into the second paragraph.
I notice a couple of sources are exclusively in the lead section. Usually sources aren't needed in the lead if the information is used elsewhere in the article - the information can be added to the Reception section and the citations stuck there instead.
- The last part about the notable recognitions have been moved into the Reception section, and the lead's citations removed.
Two game modes are mentioned, but there's only a screenshot for one of them. A second screenshot for the second gamemode would be informative to the reader.
You've mentioned referencing issues - one thing I would say is that the game manual is used an awful lot (refs 6-13). I don't think it's necessary to cite each section of the manual separately. Information concerning the gameplay can be sourced from any reliable sources - reviews, previews, features, interviews, not just the manual.
The plot section doesn't feel like it's worded as well as it could be - some of the sentences are unduly long. There is also a redundant "then" in the first paragraph.
I've seen one or two cases of over-linking - 1UP.com being the one which stood out most. A redlink to Jeremy Parish is probably unnecessary - he's unlikely to get a Wikipedia page any time soon.
- I think I got most of the overlinking now.
All instances of 1UP.com, SwankWorld etc should be italicised.
- Already clarified below ;)
Although not a requirement for GA, it wouldn't hurt to add some alt text.
- Alt text added.

Hope this helps, Una Laguna^Talk 23:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you. I'll go through the text again and make some of the improvements you recommended. However, I'm quite sure that the names of websites are not italicized. Magazines, yes, but websites, no. –MuZemike 23:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my bad on the italicising. Una Laguna^Talk 09:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some improvements as noted above. Let me know what you think. –MuZemike 01:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks much better now! Nice work. The heavy use of the manual as a reference still raises an eyebrow, but given the age of the game and the number of other independent sources it's probably ok for GA. And the extra screenshot would be nice, but again, not essential. Una Laguna^Talk 19:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'll get an image of the top-down perspective sometime this weekend hopefully (I'll be a tad busy IRL, though). –MuZemike 22:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]