Wikipedia:Peer review/The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess/archive1

The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess[edit]

Hello, everybody! This article is looking pretty good so far. The only things we need to do now IMHO are to copyedit and any other problems in this article. I was considering getting this nominated for FA again, since the last FAC didn't work. This article needs a lot of work for this article. I consider it the best game article and certainly the best of Wikipedia IMHO. May the force be with you... Sjones23 17:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Also, any recommendations in improvement shall be appreciated. Thanks. Sjones23 18:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this game is cool--S200048 19:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)s200048[reply]

Any ideas on improving this article? Thanks. Sjones23 20:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No response yet, huh? Well, I guess this will have to wait until anyone responds or puts an Automated PR response. Sjones23 22:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duuude, calm down. It's a big article, and PR isn't terribly active. That having been said:

The lead needs some work. It's currently one medium-big paragraph followed by a one-sentence paragraph, and basically says "It was delayed, released, released, and rated." The lead should cover all major points of the article, not just the development history. Sales numbers?
There's a bit of difference between the "approximately 100 years" in the article and the "few decades" stated in the source it cites.
Consider organizing the plot in a manner other than that revealed to the player (which leads to a lot of short, choppy "Link does this, Zelda explains that, Link and Midna go, etc" sentences, and often introduces characters before they've had a proper description). Most of our plot-heavy FAs (Final Fantasy) go setting, characters, story. Majora's Mask goes setting, story. Most also put gameplay before plot, but this is mostly a style issue.
The gameplay section, the items section in particular, is perhaps too devoted to specifics. I think one sentence per item is too much. How you go about condensing it is your choice, but take a look at our FAs to get an idea of what detail is appropriate.
You've got a {{cite}} tag in the TP on Wii section.
Lastly, make sure you've covered everything from the previous FAC. I see a lot of my comments mirror theirs.

That should be enough to get you started. Nifboy 22:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That should work, Nifboy and thanks. Anyone else? Sjones23 22:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that this is the second peer review, the first is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. Sjones23 02:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any other things? Sjones23 16:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some sections lack adequate referencing, ex Game Play, Collectibles, Abilities, and Music. I'd recommend trimming the plot section down even further, remove anything that is not needed or break it up into Setting and Plot section. It would also be a good idea to cite the Wii/GC official guide. Consider ripping out the last section of the sales section, unless you can cite it. The article would also look better if the two sentences paragraphs were merged with other more substantial paragraphs.

Other than that, everything looks great. Being a huge LOZ fan, I'd like to help clean the article up, but I'm kinda busy pushing the Michael Barrett article up to GA status. --►ShadowJester07 09:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]