Wikipedia:Peer review/Serious Sam II/archive2

Serious Sam II
At the beginning of the year I asked for a peer review on this (archive) and I believe that most of the issues have been addressed. I haven't had much time since then to work on this but figured that others would help address issues over the last year. I feel the article is ready for another peer review and then hopefully for the featured article nomination process. Rodzilla (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly looks much better than when I passed it as GA; I'd say it has a shot for FA. Some things:
 * Source statements like "Serious Sam II's gameplay consists almost entirely of the player attempting to defeat hundreds of enemies at a time, and thus is relatively simple", "A prominent feature in the previous Serious Sam games was cooperative gameplay, in which multiple players could play the single-player campaign together. Serious Sam II focused on this game mode even more than its predecessors"
 * Reword some awkward sentences, for example "Player-controlled vehicles and turrets were introduced to the series in Serious Sam II, and examples include rocket launcher, machine gun, and laser turrets as well as hover bikes and hover saucers", instead, "SSII (or the game to avoid redundancy if needed) introduced player-controlled vehicles and turrets, allowing Sam to utilize rocket launchers as well as hover bikes"; "This is a significant change from the previous games in the series in which the story existed merely to transport the player from place to place in order to kill as many enemies as possible in the process, with the plot consisting merely of messages that the player could disregard without consequence."
 * Layout- I swapped around the sections (put development before reception) to conform with vg conventions. Also, consider adding a reviews table like VG Reviews to the Reception section; this allows you to spend more time in the body talking about complaints and praise rather than raw scores from individual sections (see Halo 3 for examples; usually only aggergate scores are mentioned in the main body.)

-- David Fuchs ( talk ) 19:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)