Wikipedia:Peer review/Ōkami/archive1

Ōkami
Article information is stable, I've cleaned up plot and characters, added some appropriate images, and mass-cleaned-up the references. Looking for any other areas lacking for taking the article to GA and beyond. (I do note that the gameplay section can take a few more references). --Masem 18:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

UnaLaguna
Aiming for GA is certainly a good place to start, and I definitely believe this article is within the scope of such a rating. Indeed, I'd say this is fairly close to B-class as it is.

As you've mentioned GA specifically (I'm ignoring the "and beyond" bit, basically because I'm lazy), I'll go down the GA criteria and list what needs doing by each criterion:

1. Well-written. See WP:MOS.
 * References does not confer to manual of style. The reference should come after punctuation. For example, a reference citing one specific sentence should come after a full-stop at the end of the sentence. This problem is most apparent in the "Development" section.
 * The second person "You" is used in the "characters" and "celestial point" sections should really be written in the third person (e.g. "the player").
 * All lists (weapons, characters, awards) need to be converted to regular prose.
 * "Audio" section isn't long enough to justify its existence. I'd suggest adding it as a subsection to the "development" section if you can't expand it any more.
 * Generally, "story" and "characters" sections are contained within a "plot" section.

2. Factually accurate. See WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:V.
 * The sections you have sourced are generally well-sourced. However, the following sections are severely lacking in sources:
 * Lead section (although this isn't always needed).
 * Story
 * Gameplay and its subsections
 * Characters
 * Last four paragraphs of development mostly, a few random cn's
 * Audio
 * Some awards are tagged with, and E3 2005 section needs sources

3. Broad in coverage.
 * If you've got an article which covers the characters in depth, then you need only summarise each character's roles. Aren't there more characters than just two? A good character section can be found at FF7.
 * Remember WP:NOT. The "weapons" section needs trimming.

4. Neutral.
 * Are there only positive reviews for this game? The critical reception section seems rather unbalanced at the moment.

5. Stable.
 * I'll take your word for it.

6. Contains images.
 * Depending on length, you could do with a couple more screenshots, illustrating different aspects of the game. Keep up the fair-use-rationale-ness, though.

Any further questions, feel free to ask. Hope this helps, UnaLaguna 20:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A couple comments:
 * The character list here is a little different, as most of these characters are already in WP because of their Japanese legendary-ness; there are no individual pages for the characters as from the game itself. The two I've noted explicitly (Ammy and Issun) are the two the player controllers/deals with 95% or more of the time.  If I were to add the next classification of major characters, the article would balloon out too much.  I already ported the character list to the sub article noted in the Character section just to keep the length down (in addition to issues of writing about some of those characters in out-of-universe fashion).
 * I know I've missing references, just that I've added marks for cn for help on the print journals.
 * I've been able to delist-ify the parts mentioned, but I've seen GA video game articles that allow for long lists of awards (see Gears of War), as long as the awards are properly cited).
 * Thanks again for the help - just making sure I'm not missing anything obvious at the moment (outside of citations). --Masem 21:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good work on the article so far. That character section is a bit sticky: as there's another article dealing with the subject you might get away with what you have. You've picked out two of the main heroes, so perhaps you could briefly describe a couple of the main villains?
 * I see your point about the list of awards, and if that's the case it should be fine for GA. However, if you're aiming to get higher than that you will need to de-listify it at some point.
 * Looking at the "critical reception" section, you might want to split the first paragraph up into two or three smaller ones to increase readability.
 * And please continue to update this page; it's great to see how an article takes shape in relation to the peer review! UnaLaguna 09:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've put in a couple of the more frequent villains, and this leads nicely to at least one other image.
 * Delisting the awards actually helps, since there's a more recognizable order to how and when they were given.
 * I think outside of adding references for supporting the gameplay, plot, and the missing cn's, I think the general content of the article is much better now. Any other comments on that ? --Masem 14:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I've been busy for the last few days. I checked up on the article and discovered to my pleasant surprise it was a GAC! And with reason, too. I would say, however, that citing specific pages in the game manual isn't necessary and makes the reference list needlessly large (there are some VG featured articles with half the number of refs you have here). I've got two articles to GA myself, and there was a considerable difference in the two reviewers (one was reasonably lenient, the other picked out much smaller points). However, if there is something else wrong with it, the reviewer will point this out to you and give you some time to sort out these problems. Unfortunately, as I've been involved in the process to get this article to GA, I can't do the Good Article Review myself. UnaLaguna 09:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's easier to back off on references than to have to scramble for more. :) --Masem 13:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Automated Peer Review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 08:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 * Consider adding more links to the article; per Manual of Style (links) and Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
 * As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
 * Please provide citations for all of the s.[?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]