Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Age of Mythology

Age of Mythology
It narrowly failed GA recently, and apart from the reviewer's comments, I'd like to see if there's anything else needed to get it to GA (and beyond!) G1  gg  y  !  Review me! 23:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

AndonicO
First off, I don't have much time now, so I wasn't able to read much more than the article's lead section. I just thought I'd give you the automated peer review results for you to digest while I try to find time to go through the whole thing:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, · AndonicO Talk 12:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * are considered
 * might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
 * Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: armor (A) (British: armour), armour (B) (American: armor), defense (A) (British: defence), ization (A) (British: isation), any more (B) (American: anymore), programme (B) (American: program ).
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 22 additive terms, a bit too much.
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]


 * Okay, I've read the article. Here are a few things I think you should fix:


 * In the lead, you mention the reviews, sales, and expansion before you explain what this game is about. Try to make the lead section like that of Starcraft, it's structure is quite good. Also, you don't have any references in that section. Make sure everything there is to source is sourced (take a look at Starcraft, Empires: Dawn of the Modern World, and Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War).
 * The "Gameplay" section seems too long. Here's what I'd do:


 * 1) Drop the sub-section headers, just write plain paragraphs. Readers will notice the difference between the "Units" and "Heros" sections without big letters telling them that they're different, don't worry. :) (Again, try to copy the format on the three RTS FAs.)
 * 2) Don't explain the civilization's differences, per WP:INFO, wikipedia is not a game manual.
 * 3) You have a paragraph on resources, but you mention "Favor" again; try to merge them.
 * 4) You mention relics in the "Hero" section, but you have another for relics too. Merge, as above.
 * 5) In the "Units" section, you re-explain the resources; that's a bit repetitive.
 * 6) "Norse infantry are capable of constructing and repairing buildings (Norse gatherers and dwarves can not construct buildings)." should be something like: "Norse infantry are capable of constructing and repairing buildings, as gatherers and dwarves do not have this ability." It'd be more fluid, and a bit less redundant.
 * 7) "Cavalry are melee units mounted on horses, camels, or war elephants. Archers are either on foot or mounted, and attack at range." Those two sentences partially contradict themselves (due to not being correctly explained). Cavalry is melee, but archers can be mounted, so not all cavalry is melee (some are archers). If this is correct, I recommend you make it clearer.
 * 8) Don't mention anything about the expansion anywhere in the "Gameplay" section (only in the lead, or "Development"), it has it's own article. (Example: "The Atlanteans have Destroyers, which are infantry who possess a huge multiplier against buildings. They also have access to the Fire Siphon, which is a cross between ranged and melee weapons, as they possess short range but do more damage than most other ranged siege units." is just after a section explaining non-expansion siege units, so, apart from not belonging in the article, it will confuse readers.)
 * 9) "Examples of myth units are minotaurs, colossi, centaurs, phoenixes, valkyries and mummies.", if you really need to give examples, only give two or three (one from each civilization maybe?). By the way, the colossus link is a disambiguation page; might want to remove that one, since there's no article.
 * 10) Cut down the "Heroes" section, and add a paragraph on them just after that on normal units (and move the mythical units paragraph after that one). There's no need to explain the Heroes, but if you must, do it only for one of them (as an example), per WP:INFO.


 * The "Scenario editor" section's image says it has modifications installed; is it possible to have a screenshot of the "normal" scenario editor?
 * The "Reception" section might as well have the stub template on it; look into Empires: Dawn of the Modern World or Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War for a good example (the Starcraft one isn't too good either). Make sure you say what 4+ review websites said about the game overall, it's graphics, sound (music, sound effects, and voice overs), combat, naval warfare, resource management, campaign, multiplayer, AI, skill required, if it's complicated, if they liked it, and their lasting impression. Also, you should say which awards it won (or was considered for at least).

Hope that helps (especially because it took a while to write :))! I can help you copyedit the article if you'd like help (but I can't add anything, since I've never played the game). · AndonicO Talk 17:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)