Wikipedia:Peer review/Fire Emblem/archive1

Fire Emblem

This is the first article I nominated for peer review. This is for the purpose of nominating Fire Emblem as a featured article. I want the Fire Emblem series to be more recognizable to the English speaking audiences. The peer review will help reach this goal. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 00:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To achieve FA, more out of universe information must be written in. Interviews with the developers on why they chose this path, or this route. This is kind of hard to synthesis in the broad series page, but something is better than nothing. Also, include commentary on the series as whole. For instance, I read on the Famicom Wars (NES) articel that that game supposedly inspired Fire Emblem, and on the surface have played handheld versions of both series and noticed that they seem to run the same engine, have the same concept, etc. Does this story have any merit? hbdragon88 06:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to have a development section, or more information in its history. To my honest knowledge, I can't find that sort of information anywhere on the web. That sort of information on Fire Emblem can't be cited easily. It's exacerbated by Fire Emblem's unique Western-Eastern releases. The closest that I can find to interviews is just minor interviews withsome translators, and the info there is barely notable. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 14:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
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.^[?]
There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
The script has spotted the following contractions: isn't, don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
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.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 15:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article to clean up contractions, dates, and reference placement. I don't feel that the heading concerns can be dealt with – the heading "The Fire Emblem" does not refer to the article title, but a specific item by the same name. I haven't worked on the other items. Infernal Inferno 19:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the automated review is that they notify you about the nuances of MoS errors, yet there is no info on the general direction of an article. How the content can be improved; what needs expanding; what can be designated as minutiae. I'm sorry, but I'm just not in favour of automated review; I don't feel that it can really be called a review. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that by itself the automated review isn't extremely helpful. However, some of the nuances it points out are likely to be missed by the average human reader so it does help improve in the presentation, if not content, deparment. However, we really need some human input. I have left a message at WP:VG talk to that effect which will hopefully draw some human reviewers. Infernal Inferno 22:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]