I'd appreciate an all-around review on this one. I think that the article has improved greatly since the last assessment, which placed it at B-Class. I think it has a good number of references and is well written. Some areas:
Reception - Critical reception is, I believe, important for games, and it would be good to see how well the article is doing there.
Technical Issues - There has been some conflict in that area, and it would be great to see how well the working out has been done.
I don't mean this to be rude, but the article is hard to read in its current state. Here are some notes:
The structure of the article needs to be re-thought. Sections like "Venues" and "Characters" are part of the gameplay and should not be separate sections.Sections have been integrated into text. --tennisman 02:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The History section starts with the release of GHII. I would expect a history section to start with development and end with release.
Game guide material needs to be removed; go through the entire article and ask "Is this of interest to some one who will never play the game?" — if the answer is no, then remove it. Removed game guide material. --tennisman 02:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see large sections of bulleted lists that should be converted to prose.Removed, except for track lists. --tennisman 02:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "Musical references" section just looks like trivia under another name. Anything that can't be incorporate elsewhere should be removed.Section has been removed. --tennisman 02:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is is insufficient. Added a paragraph of information akin to the introductory material in games such as Shadow of the Colossus. --tennismansign here! 16:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply here once the above have been addressed and I'll take another look. Pagrashtak 15:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
