Wikipedia:Peer review/Worms (computer game)/archive1

Worms (computer game)[edit]

I would love to see this become a featured article. I have an inkling it is getting close. What needs to be done to get it all the way? Run! 21:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add inline citations. TomStar81 03:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lots, I think, but it's a very good start. 1) We need to document typical reviews of the various games and how well the games sold (if such info is available). 2) The "Weapons and tools" section needs to be bigger. Worms is, more or less, about the funky and wacky and surreal tools and weapons. Obviously, we don't need to document them all (that's what the subarticles there for), but I think it could be easily be expanded by 100-200% and not be too crufty. 3) The sounds, particularly the cute Worm phrases, are a big component of the game, and deserve a mention. 4) Worms: Director's Cut featured some unique and fun features; we should mention them. 5) These days FAC requires inline citations. 6) Wasn't Hogs of War (or something like that) a clone? If so, we should mention it. 7) We could email Andy Davidson and ask for a self-portrait ;-) — Matt Crypto 07:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks guys :) Run! 08:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Righto. Well it wasn't hard finding more things to say about the Weapons, so that section is much more comprehensive now. There's now an audio section which might need expanding, though I can't find a lot to say about the sound really. I know a friend who's obsessed with Worms:DC so I shall extract some information about that from him :). I'm plodding on with the inline citations, so there'll be more to come. I'm researching Hogs of War so that I can say something about that (fortunately, there's a wiki article on it). And I'm currently trying to get in contact with Team17 about their sales statistics for Worms. There was nothing on the site, but there might be soon. Run! 15:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]