Wikipedia:Peer review/Pokémon Stadium/archive1

Pokémon Stadium

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to attempt to get it to GA status from the C-Class status that it is currently at. I have had four successful GA nominations in the past (a small town, two films, and a book), but I do not know how to approach a video game article when it comes to getting it to that status. My interest in the subject comes from it being one of my favorite Nintendo 64 games.

Thanks, SL93 (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not reviewing this, but I can give some quick advice from skimming it.--Megaman en m (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Transfer Pak so important that it needs to be the first thing mentioned in the second paragraph of the lead? I'd move it towards the end.
Third paragraph of the gameplay section lacks a source entirely.
"Other Features" should not have its own sub-section.
Same goes for the "Mini-games" section. It should also be written in prose, not in this pseudo-list format it's currently going for. Also, I'm not sure every minigame has to be mentioned. Just a sample of three of them might be enough. Other people might disagree with me on this though.
Development section is sparse. Is there really nothing else that can be found about this game's development?
Reception section is also lacking. It's too short for one. But most notably: it overuses direct quotes. Direct quotes are fine, but not when used as the only method of relaying their opinion. Try to group similar opinions in your own words instead. You can check some other GA/FA game articles to see good examples.
The RPGamer and ELSPA links are dead.--Megaman en m (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Red Phoenix ^talk

Hi SL93 - you've got a favorite of mine, too, though I think I slightly prefer the second one because I was always such a fan of Pokémon Gold and Silver. While I don't have time to start a review this second, this is a declaration of my intent to give you some feedback within the next couple of days. Red Phoenix ^talk 16:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All right, here's what I've got for you:

For starters, you have the basic structure: Gameplay, Development, and Reception. That's perfect, as those are the notability-conferring sections.
On references, I don't think you have to worry about reliability with what you have, but you'll need to do some more research to hit the broadness criterion (see notes below). Since you have stated you're not sure how to approach a video game article, I'd recommend you check out WP:VG/S for some ideas of where you can look and what will and won't work.
Agree with Megaman en m above that surely there must be more about the development; this was a big name game for Nintendo. Right now it's more about the features of the game, not necessarily the actual development. For an idea of a good development section on a video game article, check out Out Run, which is a GA.
If you want to keep the "Sequel" section, expand it with some more info and make it at least a full paragraph. Otherwise, merge it into Reception, and make it sort of a "Reception and legacy" section.
Beware of WP:GAMECRUFT in this article. We don't need a list of Pokemon you can win at the end of the game. We don't need a list of every individual minigame in the game and how it's played. Focus on the real-world notability of the game in these section instead: what are the important aspects of the gameplay? Who developed it, and how was it received?
Make sure every statement is sourced, even in Gameplay.
Also agree with the Reception section needing more expansion, and there should be plenty of reviews so you don't need to use all the direct quotes.
Was the first game called Pokemon Stadium 2 in Japan? Seems unlikely; check your Notes section.
After you've done some research and expansion, the lead needs to be restructured to include something about all of the sections and facets. I'm sure you're familiar with it now, but MOS:LEAD is helpful.
Because there's expansion work to do, I won't nitpick the prose, but you're going to need a general copyedit of the whole article. There are little issues everywhere. It's not really ready until we get the expansion, but I will be willing to help when the article is expanded.

Red Phoenix ^talk 16:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]