Talk:President Forever 2008 + Primaries

Neutrality
Despite having a quick edit for neutrality, the article still reads like spam. The list of actions involved during gameplay is inappropriate, the section needs writing properly in prose. The reception section is weighted in the game's favour, where are the "numerous favourible reviews" exactly? The two listed are extremely close to not being reliable sources, the only other review I found was Game Tunnel with an aggregate score of 6.5 from four reviewers - hardly a glowing reference.Someone another 15:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Modified the reception section to make it more neutral. Confused about problem with gameplay? Blandish 18:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your efforts are appreciated, thank you. The gameplay section basically needs to be laid out in paragraphs rather than having the long bulleted list of features. Instead of giving the reader every specific point on the list, it would be great if you could integrate them into paragraphs explaining that choices can be made, that those choices have effects on the game, summarize what happens during play etc. etc. Take a peak at Kingdom Hearts, a featured article, its gameplay section is the sort of thing to be aiming for. If the neutrality tag is still there I'll take it down now, and try to do some work like adding categories and putting the citations into cite web format (don't worry about that, you'll see the difference). I'd have rewritten some of the text myself but I'm completely unfamiliar with the game and I've got several other things on. Cheers. Someone another (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And my apologies, I didn't realize that you'd just created the article this very day! Thanks for contributing. :) Someone another (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for taking the time go into detail for me. This is my second post on Wikipedia and the first one was deleted, so I really appreciate it when you have taken the time to help me make good articles. :) Cheers! Blandish (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Modified article's gameplay section to be proper prose format as suggested. Blandish (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Added categories as suggested. Blandish (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:VG assessment
This article definitely has enough content to justify a Start-Class promotion. However, there's still considerable work which needs doing before this article can climb higher up the quality rankings. Here are some ideas to improve the article: If you have any further questions don't hesitate to ask. Hope this helps, Una LagunaTalk 14:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Need more references - WP:CITE. A quick Google of the game's title reveals that there may not be many reliable sources around. If this is the case you can cite the game's manual/official website. Regardless, secondary sources are essential to assert notability.
 * Image:P4ep main screenshot.jpg and Image:P4ep activity screenshot.jpg seems to be showing very similar things. If this is the case then you ought to remove one of them because there's no need to clog up the article with too many images, and having too many images could give rise to fair use issues.
 * Listing each of the candidates is unencyclopedic and borders the article on game guide territory. The useful information can be summarised in one short paragraph. Otherwise, the Gameplay section is a good length.
 * Otherwise, the only things the article needs are content and sources.
 * It always does, many thanks. Someone another (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)