Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Fox: Assault/archive1

Star Fox: Assault
I would enjoy to see this article eventually reach featured article status, and I think it's on its way. I would like feedback on its overall appearance and feel so far. Thanks. PlatformerMastah 22:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 23:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The citations from the game manual should be listed separately for separate pages. The gameplay section should probably have more citations as well. That was just a rough pass through. Jay32183 02:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Trebor
A good article which needs a bit of work and a copyedit. Good work so far. 14:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Co-developed by Namco and Nintendo, Assault was released in 2005, however it was available for rental exclusively at Blockbuster and Hollywood Video stores beginning 1 February as a promotion - bit of an odd section. It being released in 2005 does not contradict the fact it was available for rental on 1 February. If anything it implies that the 1 February release wasn't in 2005, which I assume it was. Adding the exact release date would be one way of solving that.
 * The "citation needed" tagged sentence needs a cite (obviously...).
 * although this was the first and only time that it was ever mentioned - "first" and "ever" are redundant; just say it was the only time.
 * News about the game would not come about until - very wordy, could do with a rephrase.
 * Throughout 2004 - not sure what relevance linking "2004" to 2004 in video games has. It doesn't really add context, in my opinion.
 * and the name itself was changed to what it is today - clumsy prose. "Today" is a bit of an odd word to use as well.
 * Many new voice actors were hired for Assault - were they? You only go on to list two.
 * Star Fox: Assault, by critics, was the least well-received game in the series, which currently holds a 71% average at Game Rankings - again, messy prose.
 * two of the reviewers gave it a favorable 8.0 out of 10 - is that favourable? If so, by whose standards? Might be better just to say 8 out of 10.
 * Is there any more information available on sales figures? It seems very imprecise at the moment.
 * The article as a whole could do with some balancing. The "in-universe" details like the gameplay and plot are the majority of the article, with relatively little on Development and Reception. If there are additional details available for the latter two, they would be good to include, although I acknowledge that sourcing can often be tricky.