Wikipedia:Peer review/Battlefield 2/archive1

Battlefield 2
We've put a lot of work into this article as of late and are hoping to get it to featured article status such as Perfect Dark was. We'd like the whole thing reviewed and all comments and complaints to be listed so we may address them. Thanks a lot from the BF2 article editing team. Useless Fodder 18:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll look into this one more in depth later (if I forget, just drop a note on my talk page), but some obvious problems:
 * More references, inline citations need to be added to WP:CITE. Those inline external links should be converted to footnotes
 * The article is rather list-weighty at certain places, and should be converted to prose.
 * All of the images need fair use rationales, with the exception of Image:BF2-commo-rose.jpg.
 * Thanks, AndyZ t 22:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the inline citations is crucial if we want the article to ever reach featured status. Pretty much every statement needs to be backed up with footnotes, in a similar way to Philosophy of mind (which recently made featured article). It will take a lot of hunting around but it will make the article much much more credible. Remy B 06:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Random comments: Hope that helps a little: I may come back with more random comments as I see fit. Nifboy 18:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Define what "classes" are, in general, instead of going into the specifics of each class. Are these very specialized roles that all serve a very specific function, or are these different interchangable "flavors" of soldier?
 * Phrases like "when one right clicks the mouse, to get into zoom mode" should be replaced with simply "can zoom in"; instructions = not encyclopediac.
 * Other phrases, like "widely accepted amongst 1942 lovers" need to go entirely; It's weasely, and the fandom is not important.
 * Find some information on the real-world impact of the game: Sales, reviews, awards, etc. If you want to make a subjective statement about the game, quote a reviewer.
 * Define what a "booster pack" is, and how it is different from an "expansion pack".
 * The "Easter Egg" section should be removed entirely; it has no real relevance to anything.


 * Addressed Booster Packs; it could be written better IMO, but it's a start.--Hellogoodsir 21:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Classes are now linked to a descriptive page, "instructional" wording has been fixed, most of the lists have been rewritten, and the has been booster pack defined. The Easter Egg section is probably going to stay, but what's left to do is to find the impact of the game, quote reviewers, ect. Thanks for the feedback. We do apprieciate it. Useless Fodder 13:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good to see that some effort has gone into supplying fair use rationale for the images (thanks to Zxcvbnm.) The following images are still missing rationale:
 * Image:Bf2.jpg
 * Image:Abramsbf2.JPG (contacted original uploader)
 * Image:Bf2boxeasteregg.JPG (contacted original uploader)
 * Image:Cropcirclesbf2.jpg (contacted original uploader) ~ Flooch 05:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * On a separate issue, five images are used to illustrate the (notable?) easter eggs, while only three images are used to describe the game itself. Are the easter eggs so notable that they need illustrations? I'd rather see illustrations (if any) being used to describe how the game works. ~ Flooch 05:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd personally like to see the Easter Eggs section removed altogether. Its really just a waste of space, and fancruft like that will certainly prevent the article from reaching featured status. Remy B 05:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree, I'd remove it before considering FAC, it's fancruft. Sorry Zxcvbnm :P ~ Flooch 05:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's sad, though, because I never knew of these easter eggs. I do agree with the removal, though. On another note, can we have those first reviewers run back through the article and see if all the problems have been fixed in a sufficient manner? Thanks. Useless Fodder 17:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There are easter egg sections in other games, I believe. Anyway, if it is necessary to remove it, is it possible it could be moved to Wikibooks instead?--Zxcvbnm 02:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)