Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/SimCity 4/Archive 1

SimCity 4
This article has been slowly developed over time by me and other people - and I am not sure on what to try and improve next. I would like to hear some feedback on what the weaknesses in this article are - and what needs to be done for it to reach GA status. Camaron1 | Chris 14:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

UnaLaguna
Overall a good read: well-written prose with what I think is a healthy quantity of Wikilinks. There's still plenty to do to get the article up to GA-class, though. There may only be seven points listed below, but they're pretty big points. UnaLaguna 11:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The introduction is too short. Generally, an introduction should summarise the article's content in a couple of paragraphs. Refer to WP:LS for more guidance.
 * This article is seriously lacking in sources to back up what it says. This is a major problem throughout the article, and if I had to give one reason as to why this article wouldn't become a GA if nominated now I would mention the lack of sources. See WP:CITE.
 * I noticed three things about the gameplay section: it's very long, is sparsely sourced and is titled "Gameplay changes". The occasional comparison between other games in the series and this game are fine, but remember to keep focused on SimCity 4 (since that's what the article's about). The article is also going overboard on gameplay details: remember that you don't need to list every single detail of the game and that it isn't meant to be a game guide. I'd recommend renaming the section "gameplay" and merging the subsections. Take a look at some Featured articles at Category:FA-Class strategy game articles to get an idea of how other strategy/management games have presented this section.
 * All the images used on this page need fair use rationales. Take a look at WP:FURG and the images for featured articles such as StarCraft and Half-Life 2 to get some ideas.
 * The Critical Reception section is too brief. Again, look at some featured articles to get an idea of what to do. In addition to aggregate scores you should also quote a few reviews which reflect the general critical opinion of the game. In this case, most reviews are positive, so you'll want a more good reviews than bad. This is currently one of the few well-sourced sections of the article. Sourcing this section is a pretty simple job so you should have no problems working on this.
 * To reduce the number of sections to the article, you could merge the Future Updates and Add-ons/Modifications sections. The list of add-ons should be converted to prose, if possible. The Patches section could also be merged into this section and made more concise.
 * Although it isn't necessary to get an article to GA-class (such as Deus Ex), and I'd recommend you work on the points above first, many video game articles have a section regarding the game's development process (when it was first announced, previews at shows like E3, any delays, date when it went gold etc). Websites such as IGN and GameSpot are good places to find information on the development, as well as paper-based magazines. Just remember to source everything you put in. As I've said before, look at some other articles to see how this section has been tackled.
 * Thank you for your feedback - I will focus on fixing these issues. On the images, I came across the fair use rationale issue the other day - it appears that a lot of the images were uploaded a long time ago by a variety of users who just never added a fair use rationale. On adding a development section, that is a good idea and after looking at the talk page archives it appears there was a section for this a long time ago but it contained little/no information so was removed. Any further feedback by any user would be great. Camaron1 | Chris 19:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Nifboy
Random comments as I read the article; Nifboy 10:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Lead's short, per above. My suggestion is to mention the expansion and integration with The Sims, and then whatever main points the article has.
 * "The regional play concept adds a whole new dimension to this sequel of SimCity." -- This sentence particularly stuck out for me; it sounds like it belongs in a review or promotional text. It's not quite so bad in the rest of the article, but the article seems slanted more in that general direction.
 * "There are a number of buildings based on those found in San Francisco, including the Shell Building (appearing as "Wren Insurance"),[3]" The citation is inappropriate, as it deals only with the Shell Building and has nothing to do with SimCity 4. I don't even know why there's an architectural section here; how is it relevant (Compare to Wind Waker's art style: "Miyamoto was surprised at the reaction to the footage and the media's claim that Nintendo was shifting its focus to a younger audience[cites interview with Miyamoto] and he refused to reveal anything further until a playable demonstration became available.")?
 * Reception section's short. Too short. Read a couple random reviews and pick out their main points.
 * The "future updates" section is good. If you can make a development section to look like that it would be good.
 * OK, I will attempt (after my holiday Wikibreak) to address these issues. I can see the faults with the building design section - the information in it is a little off-track and trivial. Camaron1 | Chris 11:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I am on a holiday WikiBreak from now until the 5 August, so I will no longer be able to respond to comments. If this peer review becomes inactive, please archive as necessary. Thank you. Camaron1 | Chris 16:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)