Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Toontown Online

Toontown Online
Requesting a peer review. Would like to find out why this article is still rated as "Start class" on the assessment scale; I would think it's at least a B-class. Would also like specific suggestions on how to get the article to A-class or better. Thanks! Vandelay 11:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Nifboy
It's "still" rated Start-class because those involved in the assessing tend not to go back and re-rate articles unless it's specifically requested, and the bot which updated the MMORPG tag just copied it from the CVG tag. As such, it's good enough that it can safely be upgraded to B-class

That having been said, there are two major issues with the article: The big list of gags in the middle (and to a lesser extent the cog buildings and minigames), and the lack of reviews as sources. The gags are, I feel, covered well enough in the Gameplay section that minor pros/cons of each gag aren't particularly vital to the game. The individual Cog HQs are similarly redundant, and gameguide-esque.

The second flaw, a lack of reviews, is fixed simply by finding out (e.g. researching) what reviewers have said about the game, and integrating that into the article. The two major ways of doing that are to talk about reviewer's reactions to each part of the game in that section, or to cover it all in a single "reception" section. The current criticisms section can almost certainly be deleted since it's unsourced. Nifboy 17:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Automated suggestions
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Jay32183 21:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
 * Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Summary style.[?]
 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * it has been
 * allege
 * might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
 * Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behavior (A) (British: behaviour), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), counter-attack (B) (American: counterattack), any more (B) (American: anymore),  gray (A) (British:  grey).
 * 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 25 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.”
 * 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.[?]