Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Star Fox: Assault

Star Fox: Assault

I was thinking of a possible GA push for this article. A little while ago, I overhauled the storyline, added a reception section and recently converted a list. Would like to see some views from people who have not played the game and opinions of how to make the article any better. Thunderbrand 23:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd overhaul the intro paragraphs. They don't really explain what you actually do in the game apart from that it's a "space-combat" game. The "one set path" thing is arguably better in the Gameplay section, and I'd stick sone critical response in the lead paragraphs to give that general overview they're supposed to.
Some of the prose needs clearing up. At the moment it's full of unencyclopedic phrases like "bascially the same". I'm happy to give the article a good copyedit sometime if you want.
That mission sequence list is a bit game guide-ish and doesn't really mean anything to someone who hasn't played the game.
The same applies for the extras section. It's essentially a list of unlockable items and such and needs to go.
The "Reception and sales" section needs beefing out. You've given some general comments from reviewers, but what did they like (and dislike) in particular? How do the sales figures compare with StarFox 64 and StarFox Adventures?
Lacks references.

Hope that helps. -- Steel 11:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. I will do some work on it. Thunderbrand 15:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much what Steel said, plus there are way too many small paragraphs in the storyline section. Some need to be merged together (I'll try to help out on that). Also the intro section definitely needs overhauling. On a techincal note, the Sauria screenshot made the mission box stick out in the middle of the article in 1152x864, so I moved it up to the beginning of the section. Rob ert 15:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did some more work on it, but am unsure if the mission box needs to go. Perfect Dark, a featured article, has a similar box. I guess it is true, for someone reading and has never played the game, it does not really help, but does outline what levels the player visits while not having to read the whole storyline. Thunderbrand 22:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks much better than when I last checked it. That Weapons and Items section smacks a bit of game guide, and what isn't game guide would probably be better off in the gameplay section. That extras section is now only one line, so it may be better getting rid of it completely. The story section though is a bit overdetailed, as I imagine the story in this game is somewhat limited (correct me if I'm wrong, I've never played the game myself). I'm not entirely sure about that Aparoids section. How they came about is story info, and what role they play (being the main enemy) could be added to the gameplay section.
I apologise if I'm coming across a bit negative, I'm just trying to suggest improvements. That reception section is looking good. -- Steel 15:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the story is a bit detailed, so I will see what I can do with that part next. Thunderbrand 15:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. I'll try to cut down on it. Rob ert 15:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is actually looking pretty good now. Are you two planning on stopping at GA? -- Steel 11:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was what I was going to do once everything was finished. Probably in a few days, though. Thunderbrand 14:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I meant once it's GA are you going to leave it at that or take it further? -- Steel 15:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. I think just being a GA is fine, for me at least. I don't really see this being an FA, and the FA process was pretty hard on me when I tried twice to get Half-Life 2 to FA status (although Linuxbeak got it over the hump), and now the FA process is a lot tougher. Also, it would probably be best to have one of the more better known SF games (such as the first one or 64.) Thunderbrand 15:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, agreed. The subject matter itself just doesn't seem like FA material (it's no more extraordinary than your average video game). Something like SF64 would have a better chance at being an FA, though even its article would be very difficult to get featured. Ro b ert 15:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]