Wikipedia:Peer review/Call of Duty 2/archive1

Call of Duty 2
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…This was a good article but was removed mostly because it had no development section; I've added one and have contributed to a lot of other things to the article; I think this article it worthy of becoming a GA again, but I need to be sure it is worthy and if there are any flaws in it; note that the campaign section is the equivalent of story/plot sections like other video game/film articles and is optional to have references for it, and this is one of those articles where it is chosen to NOT have references in the campaign section

Thanks, SCB &#39;92 (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm both familiar with this article (made some tweaks to it years ago) and its subject, so I believe I can be efficient here as a reviewer. Since the objective is to get this article into GA shape, I'm going to pay extra attention to GA criteria. I'm starting the review this evening (GMT) hopefully, or within 48 hours at the latest. GregorB (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments by GregorB

I'll post my comments here in no particular order and summarize in the end. I'll add more comments as I go through the article. So:
 * General comments
 * The intro is a bit short. E.g. this is both a single-player (with missions, etc.) and a multi-player game, so that bit of vital (if rather mundane) information is missing. Ideally, basic facts from all major sections should be summarized in the intro.
 * ✅-SCB &#39;92 (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The beginning of the "Gameplay" section is rather abrupt ("The player can crouch and lie prone, and is able to scale low walls and other obstacles.") The original GA version is much better in this respect.
 * ✅-SCB &#39;92 (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Multiplayer" - I'd swap the paragraphs, the second is more descriptive while the first is more technical.
 * ✅-SCB &#39;92 (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Media - two appropriate fair use images (the cover and a screenshot). Still, that screenshot does not represent actual gameplay, as major interface elements (compass, weapons and ammo, damage indicators) are not displayed. One more screenshot with the appropriate caption would really be useful.
 * Campaigns - how many missions are there in total?
 * 27 missions; ✅-SCB &#39;92 (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a bit more about the Russian campaign. Sniping not mentioned here.
 * Single player gameplay has four difficulty levels.
 * ✅-SCB &#39;92 (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "The game now has sound attenuation" - "now" presumably refers to the time it was previewed, so this needs to be rephrased.
 * got rid of "now"-SCB &#39;92 (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Advertisement controversy" - maybe it should become a Level 3 section under "Reception".
 * nah-SCB &#39;92 (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A couple of automated suggestions to be fixed?
 * ✅-SCB &#39;92 (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ref #51 is dead, now tagged as such.
 * it became a dead link only a few days ago, but have now replaced it; links to the same article as before, just with a different url
 * Captain Price is rescued in the end, but he is not mentioned in the text before that. Incidentally, the guy has his own article: Captain Price (Call of Duty).
 * Mentioned-SCB &#39;92 (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The development section is rather light on wikilinks. Example: E3 is Electronic Entertainment Expo - didn't know that, and many readers won't.
 * wikilinked E3; can't seem to find much else to wikilink that hasn't been wikilinked previously in the article-SCB &#39;92 (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Prose quality is good. Normally, a copyedit is recommended before GAN, but here I don't see any reason why it would be necessary.
 * References are also developed to a high standard. I don't see anything significant wanting here. I'd like to see the system requirements referenced, though.
 * Perhaps more could be said about the weapons (although certainly not this). IIRC the article had a section on the weapons - perhaps not a good idea either. Maybe a some kind of summary paragraph? Not sure on this one.
 * A bit of context: the original Call of Duty also did WWII, in a similar way. Without that fact, it is not possible to fully understand what some reviewers meant ("Instead of feeling like a stale retread", etc.). This is perhaps something for the lead section.
 * ✅-SCB &#39;92 (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

All in all: this is a fine work and a clear improvement over the version that originally made GA, even without taking the development section into consideration. In terms of GA criteria, the only critical remarks I have are actually in the first two bullets, as these problems could fail the article on WP:WIAGA #1 (intro and layout/prose). The rest are either minor issues or merely (mild) suggestions.

This concludes my review. I'll keep watching this page and possibly provide more comments. GregorB (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review by the way-SCB &#39;92 (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)