Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Battlefield 2

Battlefield 2
The last peer review is outdated and I would really like a current update on what to do with this article. Thanks! :D Irunongames  •  play  02:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, good luck. It needs a big overhaul to be a Good Article again. Anyways, I'll start slow and suggest that some of the pictures should be removed. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Peer review by MuZemike
The article still needs some improvement, as there are a bit of unsourced gaps and some original research that needs to be removed. Overall, the prose also needs some further improvement.

Other verifiability concerns:
 * Lead is too short and needs to be expanded. Per Lead section, it should be two or three full paragraphs. Also, as the article improves, the lead should become a summary of information that already appears in the body of the article. At that point, citations in the lead won't be necessary and would only serve to clog up the lead for readers.
 * Per Manual of Style (dates and numbers), dates should be read as "November 16, 2006" and not "November 16th, 2006" (no "th" after the day).
 * Per WP:PAIC, the inline citations go after the end-punctuation with no spaces inbetween. This especially needs to be fixed in the lead.
 * Per WP:DASH, in the first sentence in the Vehicles subsection, that should be an emdash and not a hyphen. The same goes with all other instances of this throughout the remainder of the article.
 * Be consistent with the naming of the title (cf. the very first sentence in the Gameplay section). Either all mentions of the title should be Battlefield 2, or they should all be BF2.
 * Watch out for weasel words and other words to avoid, such as "considerably", "purely", "only", "effectively", "severe", or any other words that serve to editorialize and not maintain an NPOV.
 * Ideally, paragraphs should be 4-7 sentences in length, and their lengths should stay consistent throughout the article. Usage of full paragraphs gives the readers a sense that the writing has been done more professionally than usage of small, choppy paragraphs. Single-sentence paragraphs should especially be avoided.
 * Too many parentheses are being used, especially in the Features section. Remedy this by integrating all the parentheticals into their respective sentences.
 * Some portions that are displayed in list form, such as under the Infantry subsection and under the Battlefield 2: Special Forces subsection, can be better displayed as written prose. Just remove those lists and express the same information in written prose.
 * Do not use the second-person "you"! That is a big wiki no-no. Replace with third person singular or plural.
 * Images:
 * There are a lot of non-free images present in the article. Remember that Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, and that the objective is to stick with free content. A couple of those images seem unnecessary and could be removed. For instance, I don't think the other two box covers are needed, nor do I think those menu screens are. For those images that remain, those fair-use rationales must be strengthened up to meet the non-free content criteria. Specifically spell out in the "purpose" area why the image is in the article and exactly how it contributes to the readers' understanding of the article; merely saying "to illustrate" or "to describe" is not enough.
 * (new requirement for images) All images need to have alt text in them. Please read the guidelines at WP:ALT for how to add alt text to images and how they should be worded.
 * Captions. Per WP:CAPTION, if the caption consists of a sentence fragment, then no end-punctuation is to be used. If the caption does consist of complete sentences, then end-punctuation must be used.
 * Links: This dead link needs to either be fixed or alternatively removed.
 * Everything needs to be verified by a reliable source. Several sections are completely unsourced, and others looks like they consist of original research. Please add reliable secondary sources in those places that need them.
 * All quotes must be followed with a citation referencing where that quote came from. For example, the last sentence in the Reception section does not have one.
 * Citation #36 (the PC Gamer citation) needs to be fixed. Use the cite journal template and include the title of the relevant section in which the game is mentioned as well as the volume number along with what is already included.
 * I cannot bring up citation #38 (the Gaming Nexus review). Is there a better link for that?
 * Citations #39 through #43 are self-published sources as they are Internet forum postings and hence are unreliable. Either replace with reliable sources or alternatively remove said content.

That's all I come up with right now. I'll go into more detail later if I see anything else that needs improvement. MuZemike 18:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)