Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Mana (series)

Mana (series) edit

The main article of the Secret of Mana series (as most people know it), is in great need of help. I want to get it to at least GA. Thoughts? Thanks so much! Judgesurreal777 19:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow this article is long.

I would recommend splitting some of the common elements into their own articles, but make sure to include conception, creation, reception, and refs or it will be deleted as cruft. I think Rabites is a good example of something that needs to be split, expanded, and have a main article link in the series article.
Images need fair use rationales.
Lots of references are needed. Even has a couple of fact tags. Any fact that could be challenged needs a citation.
Where is the reception, development, and audio sections?
The games section needs to be structured more like this. I would suggest removing the images of every single game and summarize some of the games better.
Once you write more of the out of universe sections, I would expand and reference the lead.

Have fun.--Clyde (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your first suggestion implies that a lot of this material deserves its own article, which it doesn't since most of it is fancruft. But thank you for your other suggestions! :) Judgesurreal777 23:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is cruft, why is it still here?--Clyde (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::Big non-sarcastic smile:: That's why its being peer reviewed! :) You are giving me some cover to do some major trimming! Judgesurreal777 04:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well my favorite quotes are

"A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it's unsuitable. Keep in mind that video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers; remember the bigger picture."

"Articles on computer and video games should give an encyclopedia overview of what the game is about, not a detailed description of how to play it or an excessive amount of non-encyclopedic trivia."

Basically this.--Clyde (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of something. I would be more than happy to help write the lead (I've done quite a few), but after writing the entire article, you're probably more fit to do it. If you want me to, I will, but as the main contributor, you'll probably produce a better one.--Clyde (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say go ahead, write one, it can always be added to by others :) Judgesurreal777 23:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, but it is the last thing to be written after all the stub tags are gone.--Clyde (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]