Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
There's been a lot of work put in over the last few weeks since the game's release worldwide and I reckon it'd be good to have a look at it wtih a view to putting in a GA nomination after the major problems are sorted, especially now that the general content seems to have stabilised with less speculation and more hard facts. BigHairRef | Talk 11:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

First off, problems I see: Things that are good: Userpie 19:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's see, I haven't done anything for this article, so I'm going to glance over it.
 * The twilight realm SS under 'Weapons and Items'. Not only is it out of place to me, but it should be replaced by a different screenshot. That one is clearly ripped from a magazine (Game Informer?)
 * Races section is listy, and the details given are uninformative in some races. Sheikah and Kokiri are speculative.✅
 * I don't like the second paragraph in music. The first half of it is a little NPOV.
 * Intro paragraph and as much I can read of the plot without spoiling the game for me
 * Gameplay
 * Reception
 * The article is well souced and only need verification in a few places


 * The intro is not a typical overview of the game. Provide general information (it's a video game published and developed by Nintendo for the Wii and GameCube in 2006 - you can be specific with release dates on the last paragraph), an overview of the story, and its position in the series. Try something like Metal Gear Solid.
 * Build the gameplay up to the plot, not the plot up to the gameplay. This is a game, the gaming aspect should be first. This could normally be done by switching the gameplay section first, but you'll have to change the gameplay section to go easy with the story-details (use information already supplied in the lead)
 * Gameplay needs to expand on things like horse-riding, dungeons, and I don't know what else (haven't played the game)
 * Make the Plot section far smaller (SUMMARIZE), and create a "characters" subsection inside of it. A "setting" subsection will also be good.
 * Do away with "Weapons, items and abilities" or merge a compact form into a subsection of Gameplay.
 * Merge SMALL PARTS of the enemies section into Plot and Gameplay, otherwise remove it.
 * Merge races into the characters subsection I explained earlier
 * A lot of things are not clear. I'll list a short amount of this:
 * It doesn't even explain it's a video game, and we unaware if Nintendo is a developer and/or publisher. What are the Wii and GameCube? As I stated above, attempt an intro similar to Metal Gear Solid✅
 * (I won't delve into the plot section as I have already stated to change it heavily)
 * In gameplay, it brings up the Wii Remote. The whole controller explanation is confusing. How does the Wii Remote work? What do you mean by "point-and-click" with the Wii? What the hell is a "fairy" cursor? You say "in order to swing the sword" - but we know nothing of "the sword". What's a "shield attack"? What's a "spin attack"? What is the "classic Zelda cime"? What's "Midna interaction"?✅
 * "When transformed into a wolf, Link’s sense of smell is greatly improved" - wait, what? How is smell implemented into the game?✅
 * (I won't go into the weapons/enemies/races sections either)
 * Music section - "Music once again plays a role in Twilight Princess." - what? Where else did it play a role?✅
 * These NEED SOURCES: "The fact that Nintendo has decided to use mostly MIDI for the soundtrack, however, has been a point of criticism", "MIDI allows the background music to be more dynamic, but the sound quality suffers."
 * Development section - "A number of rumors about the game were confirmed at E³ 2005" - you should probably just remove this rumor carry-on.
 * "Link beginning the game as a ranch-hand" - What is a ranch-hand? Sorry if this is general knowledge.
 * "changes in the horse controls from Ocarina of Time" - this is the first time you bring up using a horse. Explain this in gameplay.✅
 * Who is Reggie Fils-Aime? You bring him up and yet we don't know who he is (I obviously do, but you have to assume the person doesn't know)✅

I give up at this point. You can figure out the rest of the explanation problems in the rest of the article. Don't bring up information if you haven't explained it, even if it's obvious to someone who has played the game. Read over everything and think - "have I mentioned this before?" - if not, then DO SO. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2007-01-11 15:14
 * 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.[?]
 * Consider adding more links to the article; per Manual of Style (links) and Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
 * 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.[?]
 * This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
 * 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 32 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.”
 * Avoid using contractions like: didn't.
 * Please provide citations for all of the s.
 * 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.[?]


 * I've made some changes (that I think are what was requested) and since the original contributors to the PR have made no comment I have added ✅ where I think they've been sorted. As far as I can tell what remains are minor points, can anyone else make any more conributions before any GA attempt is made?BigHairRef | Talk 13:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)