Wikipedia:Peer review/Killer Instinct Gold/archive1

Killer Instinct Gold
I know that a page is nearly ready for FA when I've exhausted every possible avenue of sources. Although this article did not exist a few days ago, it is now (hands down) the most complete and authoritative resource for the game on the Internet. It has contemporaneous sources from the 90s and goes through to the Rare Replay reviews—only one major reviewer had something to say about it. It has some nice flourishes in the Dev section, and I think it's about done. Anyone have any advice on how it may be improved before I bring it to FAC? Thanks, – czar   09:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm aware of the current CS1 "bad date" error. I think it should be okay and brought it up for discussion – czar   10:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I think I played one of the Killer Instinct games, but I can't remember which one...
 * Comments from JM
 * It might be worth thinking about the player/player character distinction- for example, "players fight on a 2D plane" is wrong; players control characters who fight on a 2D plane. I'm guessing that this is potentially something which will throw non-gamers
 * "Reviewers preferred the Gold Nintendo 64 port to its arcade version" Picky, but Gold didn't have an arcade version, if I understand correctly. Gold was the non-arcade version of Killer Instinct 2.
 * I think "face-off" is a noun- "face off" would be the verb
 * "Gold also features a new camera with automatically zoom functions to better frame the fight" This doesn't work
 * "Some voiceovers are missing from the Nintendo 64 release." As opposed to what?
 * "A departure from fighting games such as Street Fighter" Perhaps this should be "In a departure"?
 * "for 90s video games" This should probably be "for '90s video games" or "for 1990s video games".
 * "wrote that Gold was decent" Slightly odd
 * "(better than the other option, Mortal Kombat Trilogy" Specifically, the other option in the same genre
 * You know this, but I'm not keen on personification of publications- AllGame doesn't say things, writers for AllGame say them
 * "but one reviewer commented that Gold had few other positive features" One reviewer from Game Informer?
 * Is "extempore" a noun? I think you're using it as one.
 * Just a little thing, but in the lead you talk about reviewers wanting a "graphical update", but in the prose it just seems that reviewers wanted better graphics. Judging from the review scores in the box, I think you might be able to give a better impression that a lot of viewers were, overall, not particularly impressed.
 * Especially for FAC purposes, I would say that the generic rationale for the screenshot is not appropriate. Especially given the extensive discussion of the graphics, I do feel that the image is justified, but that doesn't mean that a good rationale isn't necessary.

This is all very picky- the article does strike me as very strong. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Another quick thought- especially given that there's no real story to speak of and that other video game articles would have a story section, perhaps a list of characters would be a useful addition? I'm not certain about this. It does strike me as something that I'd personally be interested in seeing, especially if I knew other games in the series. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I started work on these in August and I'll let you know when they're done. czar  21:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)