Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/The Sims 2

The Sims 2
The last PR was in August '06 and I think the article's content has changed enough to warrant another. We need solid opinions to reference in the face of those who refuse to cease adding game manual material. ALTON  .ıl  04:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Clyde Miller
After a quick look through:
 * There is no development section. Talk about releases, previews, interviews with developers etc.
 * Images need a fair use rationale (Look at some FAs for examples)


 * The reception section needs to be converted into prose covering good and bad aspects, as well as general scores.
 * The reception section has direct links to other websites. Change those to citations.


 * Change citations to Template:cite web.

If I get a chance I'll look at it further.--Clyde (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It says this is archived but....I found a couple more things


 * "It was released on 2004-09-17..." I don't no what the call is, but I think you should prosify the dates (like September 17, 2004).
 * I believe that it's the correct way to link dates. If you type 2004-09-17 then it should appear the way you suggest it should, according to one's Preferences.
 * Umm.... I see the both the prosified version and the non-prosified version in several different articles. I don't really understand what you are saying above, but I think the jist of it is that it's the writer's preference. If this is the case, I'll let it stand. Also, I'm a little rusty with policy regarding dates, but most articles I have seen use prosified dates.
 * Well, I want to make sure it's correct because some other people get really picky about things like that. Have a look at this: that's how I've been doing it.
 * I seem to be a little hazy about your point. All you've done is highlight both ways of writing the date and say that's how you've been doing it (which one do you use?). For whatever reason, the Sims 2 article has dates written like the bottom way. According to this you can write it any of the ways, but all the FA VG articles I have ever seen use the first example ( → February 17, 1958) and not the third example (  → 1958-02-17). That's the only reason I reccomended you change it.
 * I wasn't trying to make a point; I didn't think you understood it. Thanks though, I'll go through and change it immediately.


 * There are seven fair use pics. While many are useful, see what can do about trimming these down.
 * The fair use rationales for the pictures are a little small. This is a good place to look to expand them.
 * For such a long article, the lead is pretty small. WP:LEAD is a good place to look. Basically summarize everything in the article in a couple paragraphs.
 * Recognition needs to be renamed to reception. What needs to be added is some general scores and what was bad about the game.
 * Development is looking good, but for a game like this, it needs more (I noticed you didn't add the check).
 * The add-on secion bothers me for some reason. I don't why...
 * Perhaps it's unconventional? Does the article even need it, since there is the corresponding navbox below?
 * I think maybe at least the tables in expansion packs and stuff packs should be removed. There is already an article about the stuff packs and a navbox for the expansion packs.

--Clyde (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Replies: ALTON   .ıl