Wikipedia:Peer review/Advance Wars: Dual Strike/archive1

Advance Wars: Dual Strike
This article has come a long way from what it used to be. Some advice on what to add, expand upon, remove, change, etc. would be appreciated. If possible, I'd like to elevate this page to featured article status. -- gakon5 (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Any references? This is a requirement for FA. Pentawing 06:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, my main reference was the game itself (considering this is an article on a video game), although some bits and peices of articles were drawn from walkthrus and FAQs. So.. I should link to those text files? -- gakon5 (talk)
 * No, that'd be illegal. You need references to back up claims, such as sales figures, quotes from developers, etc. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, I haven't quoted any developers, written up anything on sales figures (as it didn't sell nearly as many copies as a DS game like Nintendogs) or made any claims that need backing up, unless I'm missing something. Would a write-up on the game's developemt history be in order or something?  Although looking through things such as Gamespot updates on this game, nothing terribly interesting happened before the game launched; not on the scale of something such as Counter-Strike: Condition Zero, whose developers traded off the development of the game three or four times. -- gakon5 (talk)

Ryan Norton T 21:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) May need a two paragraph lead (WP:LEAD)
 * 2) Several subsections too short - systemic through the article ''Merged Versus and Link mode into Multiplayer;
 * 3) "Game Modes" opens with a one-sentence paragraph. Two or three more sentances, need more?
 * 4) "Demo mode" a little short.... Merged into Game modes > Combat mode
 * 5) "New commanding officers" - too list heavy, get rid of these and just write it out :)
 * 6) "New units" - again, write out this list stuff Merged into Gameplay > Units
 * 7) You do need sales figures etc. here in order for it to be comprehensive (one of the FA criteria)

At last! Someone replies! I've been trying to count the exact number of words in this article, but I was guessing this would need a two-paragraph lead. I'm also working on condesning the number of sections, particularly under Gameplay; Game Modes will have some sections merged (eg Link and Versus mode into Multiplayer). Do you have any advice on what subheaders under Gameplay are good to keep or remove? I myself didn't put them in there, but they're probably making the TOC larger then it needs to be. The Units section, I'm going to link to the just-created Units in Advance Wars, and provide an overview of what kind of units are available, as well as making notes on the new ones, going along with Summary Style. The Demo section I can probably integrate into Game Modes > Combat mode. And, lastly, I'll find some sales figures, although I don't have much of a clue where to go, and this game probably wasn't too much of a record-breaker. I'll look around. -- gakon5 (talk)
 * Resolved issues strike-thru'd. - g5


 * Alright, I'm working on reducing the number of subheadings still, so I gots some questions:
 * Should Units and Commanding Officers be out into their own sections, or stay under Gameplay?
 * I'm going to translate New Commanding Officers into a paragraph and then maybe stick it in Gameplay > Commanding Offers. If I do that, it should be large enough to graduate from subsubheader to just subheader (two equals signs), no?
 * War Room and Survival are the smallest Game Mode sections. Should they be stuck into Other Modes?
 * Or, as an alternative, I could just put everything under Other Modes except Campaign and Combat mode, and probably Multiplayer too.

Advice appreciated. -- gakon5 (talk)