Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind

The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind
Last fall, this article was a mess. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Elder_Scrolls_III:_Morrowind&oldid=73780869 No Plot, Development, or Reception sections, the article was composed of a massive section on leveling, skills, and NPCs, in the style of a GameFaqs article. I took it upon myself to cut out the offending How-To sections, and replace them with a cited Gameplay section detailing the game as the sources presented it, with developer decisions, reviewer opinions and so on. I eventually grew tired of this, and left the article on its own for some time. Then, some time in December, this article was unexpectedly nominated for GA, despite still having no "Reception", "Plot", or "Development" sections, and a "Gameplay" section still massively oversized from my bloated quote-heavy typing. The article passed, and I went about hastily adding those sections so as to comply with general CVG form, and took most of the Gameplay material over to a Gameplay of The Elder Scrolls series article, leaving the Gameplay section at a length I hope is comparable to video game FAs, and hopefully allowing a lot of the listy game-guidey material from the Oblivion page to be rendered into a more acceptable form, although this part isn't necessarily done as of yet. I've done some minor tweaking since then, but am somewhat unsure as to how to move forward. I'm hoping to eventually push this article on to FA or something like it, and so I'd like your opinions on what this article could be improved on, cleaned up, cleaned out, or extended. Any comments are welcome. Geuiwogbil 03:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Quick nit: "In the original, the player was given no indication of the amount of health left in their enemies...." the first three words make me wonder, was this function added in an expansion? Other than that, it looks really good. Nifboy 04:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was added in the expansion packs. I'll add a sentence to note that, and put a cite at the end, later tonight. Thanks for the courteous review. ^_^ Geuiwogbil 16:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Unforseen circumstances cropped up, pushing back the work a few days. I hope to work on it by the weekend. Currently I don't have access to a computer with full access to the internet. :( Geuiwogbil 19:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Very good article. The content appears to be complete, though there are still a few issues. Several times, I found myself zoning out due to the sheer number of redundancies. This could easily be fixed through a copyedit from multiple users, however. Also, I noticed a few instances of original research.


 * The biggest problem I noticed was the lack of source variety. While you did a great job rounding up the 70 references, most are taken from the same handful of sources. For example, I believe only 5 specific reviews were cited. Notably missing were the opinions of PC Gamer,Computer Gaming World and Official Xbox Magazine. If you took care of these issues, I could see this reaching featured article status. JimmyBlackwing 23:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * PC Gamer's already present as a source. I'll work on referencing its opinions more often. I found the CGW review on the print source compiler linked from certain FF refs, and I'll work on that this weekend as well. I don't know what to do about OXM, though I see one certain WP CVG member owns the relevant copy under CVG resource exchange, though I can't find the link at the moment. How does resource exchange work, by the way? Anyways, I'll work on a ce and some sourcing during the weekend. Thanks for the comments! Geuiwogbil 19:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the magazine project, just ask the relevant user for the information contained therein, and hopefully information will be provided. Nifboy 17:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)