Wikipedia:Peer review/Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas/archive1

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas edit

I like this article and I was willing to work on it to possibly get it to FA status. Of course I can't do it alone so I wanted so get more eyes with different points of view on it.Nnfolz 17:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now here is an video game that can have lots academic references and critical analysis. Consider these sources here. Make sure to convert those external links in the body to footnotes. Consider reducing the "External links" section. Review failed video game FACs to see what went wrong for them, like Spira, 3D Monster Maze, Tecmo Cup, Paper Mario, Final Fantasy VI.--maclean25 05:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above, plus it's way too long, and the focus is pretty much entirely within the gaming world: what is not directly about the game environment and game play, is discussion from the POV of, essentially, the people waiting for, speculating about, and reacting to it. Putting it in a general real world context is important. Technical stuff like how it was developed, did it in any way innovate compared to other games, did it do anything new with the use of established actors and music. Business info like marketing, how much it made, etc. Social impact, criticisms, was it banned anywhere, that sort of thing. I don't believe there's any favored WP format for VGs, even among those that are Featured, but in general, "not just from a 'fan' perspective" is a good rule. --Tsavage 06:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Many video game fans need to get a life and learn how to view video games more objectively (I should know, I used to have that problem when I was a kid). --Coolcaesar 01:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lead needs expansion. It should be a summary of the entire article.
"myths and easter eggs" and "crossover" sections could benefit from summary style.
One-paragraph sections are generally frowned upon. Besides, I don't think the subheaders under "san Andreas Worlds" are necessary
Way too many external links subsections. There's 9 subheaders there!
Circeus 01:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]