Wikipedia:Peer review/Age of Empires III/archive1

Age of Empires III
On the Talk Page, Clyde Miller rated us as a Class B article. I would like to know what we can do to improve to a Good Article. The only suggestion that Clyde Miller made was the incorporation of footnotes, so I would like to know where these would be appropriate, but other than that, the field is more or less open. An area that has caused us a few problems is the use of tables and lists (see talk page archives ), and there is no consensus on how these should be used throughout the article (eg. we do have a list of buildings, albeit on a different page, but there is no longer a section for units). Of course, any comments on grammar, layout or content (and, indeed, where we need to go with the article) would be appreciated. Thanks for taking the time to help. Ck l o stsw o rd|queta! 19:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's the short list:


 * No basic description of gameplay.
 * Links directly to an off-site .exe (the demo): Bad idea. - replaced with link to microsoft details page for file. Ck l o stsw o rd|queta! 11:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No reviews, no reaction, no development info, no nothing. These are the sort of thing that you want cites for.
 * You'll want to strip some of the ingame info (like that big table in the middle) out to make room for stuff like the above. Nifboy 20:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The biggest thing that struck me was the amount of technical information included. According to WP:CVG, game-related articles should typically not include a lot of how-to informaiton. One of the things mentioned is mere statistics. I think a lot of the information (esp. the age and civ info) falls in that category. By the same token, there isn't really any "gameplay" in the gameplay section. One vital general-purpose question that I never see answered (at least not that I can find) is "What is the main objective?" The article goes on every side of it, but never flat-out answers that question.


 * This feels too much like a dependent article. The first few sections rely too much on knowledge of the previous games in the series. While I personally have played everything up through AoE III, the average Wikipedian has not. The article for this game should be able to stand on its own with minimal, and preferably no knowledge of the other games.


 * The article needs a general copy-edit job. I'm seeing a lot of filler words. For example, in the section on the expansion, it is said, "It will contain 3 new native civilizations that can be completely controlled and they are:". There is also some redundant information, such as the Windows version being discussed in both the system requirements section and the demo/retail section.


 * In my opinion, there are too many screenshots. The Russian Home City shot really doesn't help me understand the concept of a home city, The "in-game physics" shot really doesn't visually illustrate anything of use (where are the physics?), I would remove the ES promo shot and I would find a way to combine the other two so that they can serve the same purpose. Also, if someone would take and do a rendering at both high and low graphics settings of the same image so that there could be a visual comparison (make the left half be at high settings and the right at low settings, etc.), it may increase the benefit of the screenshot. --Carl (talk 00:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The main problem with having lots of technical data is that while it's mostly unnecessary (I agree with you here), we just can't seem to get rid of it! We had reams of information about military units, which we moved to a separate article (which has now been prod'd). Another list of AOE3's buildings is now on another page as well. Whenever I try to move or trim unnecessary information, I get replies contesting my work, or asking why I need to remove their work. I'll keep your suggestions in hand, thanks! Kareeser|Talk! 03:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

''Thanks - this is all really useful. Is there an article that we can use as an example or template? (Found featured Final Fantasy X) Ck l o stsw o rd|queta! 10:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)''
 * FFX is not the most exact fit for your purposes; all of the Square FAs have massive plot summaries, that are probably not ideal for your purposes. Compare those to FAs like Katamari Damacy, StarCraft, and 3D Monster Maze to get a sense of how the available information drives the content and layout of each article. Nifboy 16:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)