Talk:Dead Rising (video game)/to do


 * Lead
 * Extend lead section. It should be about three paragraphs for the current size of the article, two for the size if the other comments in this assessment are worked upon. ✅
 * The prose of the lead section is not good to the point of unreadable. It may need a rewrite or a check by a native speaker of English.✅
 * Infobox
 * Contains the qualifier "(for frequent bloody violence)" with the BBFC. This needs a source.✅
 * Inline external link (in Japanese) to the engine. Either write a Wikipedia stub, or have no link at all.
 * Gameplay
 * Remove Gaming jargon. This is a common problem, and can be solved by checking the section for jargon specifically. Examples include "unlocking", "in-game", "usable" (consider just deleting this word wherever it is used), "boss battle", "unlocked", "stat", *# As the abbreviation PP is not used much, consider not introducing it and then not using it at all.
 * Some qualifications are made without sources. Who called cooking food a "strategy element"? Who are the "many gamers" that are frustrated with the saving system? Finally, this section could use a good copy edit.
 * Storyline
 * Too detailed. Cutting it down to about three paragraphs is advised, with one for the overtime plot. The section on alternate endings is nice and informative.✅
 * The information on the characters and storyline is scattered throughout the article. Onyett's comment about Frank West would've been very informative when I read about him earlier, but instead I got to read the unsourced qualification that he's "overly zealous". Merging all information on the character together in about three-four long paragraphs would be a good idea.
 * Development
 * The product placement section needs removal of the link and sourcing. ✅
 * Merging Technical Issues and Downloadable Content with Development is standard practice, ✅
 * The soundtrack needs to be somewhere that's not a one line section too. ✅
 * Reception
 * Reads that Capcom is currently giving away surveys. How current is that? Source? It may be contradicted by the last sentence of the section, too. ✅
 * "A point of contention among many fans" needs a source and is a weasel word. Perhaps removing the "many fans" would just do. I am well aware of the fact that appearing in CAD, VGCats and SA means that it's a notable controversy. (I somehow missed that CAD episode, too, so thanks to the editor for linking it.)
 * Otherwise ok.
 * Sources need author, accessdate, date, and other information. See the template. ✅