Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/F-Zero (video game)

F-Zero (video game)
I need comments on how to improve this article. Something to make it at least more up to GA criteria. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Teancum
 * The first gameplay image seems really strange in the Reception section. Is there any reason it's not in the Gameplay section?  You might also wikilink Mode 7 in that caption.
 * Done. GamerPro64 (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The first paragraphs in the Gameplay and Reception sections are daunting to the casual reader. Can they be broken in two?
 * I separated the first paragraph in the Gameplay section. I'm not sure about separating the Reception's first paragraph, though. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. GamerPro64 (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "The title was downloadable over the Nintendo Power peripheral in Japan and was also released as a demo onto the Nintendo Super System in 1991." -- anything stated in the lead should be somewhere in the body or an infobox. I couldn't find anything about the downloadable version.  Also, WP:LEADCITE states generally that unless there is a need to have citations in the lead they can be moved elsewhere.
 * Only the first time a publisher appears in the references should it be wikilinked.
 * Done. GamerPro64 (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Overall looks good. --Teancum (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments by Teancum
 * There's a little bit of past/present tense - for example, the image caption uses "Mode 7 allowed the track", but the prose next to it uses "A race in F-Zero consists of"
 * The "Leagues" section is unnecessary - just remove the heading and make it part of the "Gameplay" section
 * The "Story" section should probably be renamed "Setting" and made a level 2 heading
 * The "Reception" section has no aggregate information on the game. GameRankings only has two reviews, but maybe there's another custom aggregator that has more.  I didn't find anything on Metacritic.  It might serve useful.
 * This section could also use a bit of reorganization in regards to the types of comments - graphics, sound, controls, innovation, etc.
 * Maybe it's just me, but I'm a big fan of the Video game reviews template. It gives casual readers a quick glance without having to read through all the prose - which, let's be honest - lots of people don't.  Currently the prose does nothing to portray overall scores, it just merely comments on specifics, so it's difficult to see an overall assessment on how critics felt.  The template does that, and allows the prose to focus on details.

--Teancum (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestions. I personally do not like using scores from recent reviews on a game released 20 years ago. I'm pretty sure the game's age rules-out aggregate sites. To me, its one thing to talk about how a game was perceived around the time of release, but its another to give a review based on "how it stands against the test of time".  However, I'm okay with a review table as long as the scores are labeled like "7.5/10 (VC)". If the review table for Halo 3: ODST was taken out, for example, the prose should stand on its own. Perhaps if GP and me find enough print media, we can give it a try. Cheers,  « ₣M₣ »  22:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)