Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Serious Sam II/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review‎ | Serious Sam II

Serious Sam II edit

I'm looking for feedback on the article as a whole. I'm trying to get the article up to an A-class article in preparation for Featured article candidate, and could use outside feedback on how it can be improved further. Please see the article's GA-status discussion for previously addressed issues. --Rodzilla (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krator edit

I noticed mostly small things, good job on writing this!

  • In the introduction, three consecutive sentences start with 'the game'. Doesn't look nice. "The game" appears seven times in total. In general, needs copy editing for things like word order. (later released -> released later?)
  • The third paragraph doesn't make sense after the first sentence - it just jumps from one topic to another. Reading the structure of the article makes me understand why the introduction is structured like this, but making it understandable without reading ahead would be good. Adding some more content from the development, reception and engine sections would do the trick - the introduction should be a bit longer anyway.
    • I've lengthened the lead a bit and reworded some parts. Is it better? --Rodzilla (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gameplay starts with a statement about previous Serious Sam games. It would be wiser to assume that the reader has no prior knowledge of those games, and write about the gameplay first, and then make the comparison.
  • "Puzzles" is an ambiguous term, and could mean a lot of things besides the intended 'problems with solutions that require things besides destroying stuff'.
  • "This is contrary to typical games, in which the player is able to resume from checkpoints or saved games an infinite number of times." Typical Serious Sam games? There are many other games with a lives system like this.
  • The section 'synopsis' should have a better title.
    • What do you suggest? I based this off of GA's F.E.A.R. and Halo 2, as they both have similar sections. --Rodzilla (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Characters section needs a larger summary, it's a stub section now.
  • List of weapons cites no sources, and is just generally awful - I agree with what was written on the talk page on this:
"List of Weapons in Serious Sam II- first off, linking to another page that doesn't cite your sources is bad. Secondly, why is this page even needed? Pages like it (List of Weapons in Halo 2) have been deleted as game-guidish, non-notable, unencyclopediac. I'm not going to bring them to an AfD, but I suggest striking the refer from the article and instead incorporating a general overview and why they are important in the main article."
Though it was noted that the link was removed, I think the current state of this section of the article isn't good.
    • So should I remove the "Main article: ..." link or is work needed on the actual text in the SSII article? --Rodzilla (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reception section is good, though a little small. Maybe cite a few short bits from the notable reviews?
    • I cited a chunk from the IGN review which closely matched with many other reviewers' sentiments. Is that section sufficient now? --Rodzilla (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The game engine link is capitalized. Shouldn't be.
  • The last two paragraphs of this section contain no internal links.
    • I added internal links to the 2nd to last paragraph, but couldn't find a way to add any to the last paragraph, as there doesn't seem to be anything else on wikipedia that matches the features described. --Rodzilla (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The external link for 'Seriously' in the Development section does not fit in the citing/linking style of the rest of the article.
    • Are you saying that the inline link where it says "... fansite Seriously! ..." should be removed in lieu of the citations for the article/video being referenced? The reason it's like it is is because all of the citation are citing items themselves, while that sentence is referencing the site itself, so it's linked directly, similarly to internal links. If you could clarify what you mean exactly and what you recommend it'd be helpful. --Rodzilla (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hm, I suppose you could leave it this way after a second thought and read. --User:Krator (t c) 16:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references contain a ton of external links to the 'Seriously' home page - link it once, or once per section.
    • I'm not sure what you mean exactly. Are you saying that only the first reference that links to a page on 'Seriously!' should have 'Seriously!' as an external link and all the rest should just leave it as plain text? If so, should I do the same for GameSpy/GameSpot and others that are referenced multiple times? If not, what do you mean? Thanks. --Rodzilla (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes - first one linked, rest as plain text. Gamespot/Gamespy have a wikipedia article and should be internal links, again, just the first time. Good to see not all peer reviews are forgotten the day after they're posted.--User:Krator (t c) 16:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. What's the point in asking for a peer review if you don't take advantage of the results? ;) --Rodzilla (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--User:Krator (t c) 23:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 20:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. I don't see anything that actually needs to be changed based on that though. --Rodzilla (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krator (2) edit

As the previous section has become a bit large, I created a new section. When reading this page for a second time, a lot of things I have previously addressed have been improved. One thing, however, is not:

  • The 'Synopsis' section still is not good. Characters and Weapons need more content (per my previous review) and the whole layout and structure of this part of the article is just awkward. Consider Wikipedia:Amnesia test.

Also, consider making the images somewhat larger. I'll review this article again if you want, once the above issue is solved. I'll take a more in-depth look then.

--User:Krator (t c) 16:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and expanded the weapons section while also adding an additional source. I removed the link to the list of weapons article as it was really no longer necessary and the page lacked sources. I'll hopefully get around to fixing the characters section sometime soon. I enlarged two of the screenshots also. --Rodzilla (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

davidh.oz.au edit

Under "Synopsis", every paragraph begins with "Serious Sam II". Instead, please consider using the phrase, "the game". In fact, it seems as if in every other paragraph repeats the the game's title when it doesn't have to. This is quite jarring and redundant. Usually it can be avoided by careful word placement, but in this case it went over the threshold. Other than that, well done. I'm actually not all that sure that there is enough information to write about the characters in the article, but a more thorough summary should at least be attempted. —davidh.oz.au 23:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed some of the "Serious Sam II" entries to "the game." ----Rodzilla (talk) 08:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

good deatails edit

I think that you should provide a link for help on the game.Historybuffc13 (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Serious_Sam_II/archive1&oldid=186479201"