Wikipedia:Peer review/The Legend of Zelda/archive1

Planning on elevating to featured article status, so I need some advice on what to add, delete or change. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty well-written, barring a few eccentricities (such as "clasps"). But there are a couple things that could use improving: the Talk: is messy, and not nearly as good as the article, and some people will look at the talk; and the desciption of the actual in-game activites seem lacking. Now that I've read it, I am curious: what bosses are there? What sorts of puzzles? Is there any more to the story? Do beloved characters appear? What do they do? Where does the game fit in the larger Zelda universe? etc. --Maru (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Needs some analysis of the critical reaction to the game, at the time and today. (2) No reference section. (No references even). The first point probably applies to many of these articles. The second may apply to many of the others as well. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a start, but it needs much work before it achieves FA status. The most important thing I see is that it includes no more information than someone might find by surfing the internet for a few minutes. This game is hugely popular and highly influential; the literature on it is out there. Someone needs to gather up some books on video game history (there are many) and add important details like what the climate was like at Nintendo at the time, where the idea came from, what influences are found in the game, how Nintendo marketed the game, what the reaction was like in both Japan and America, etc. If someone went to a research library and added information from other academic disciplines, it'd be icing on the cake (Japanese cultural studies, popular culture studies, new media, women's studies, etc.) By the way, this goes for the other video games you've listed here for peer review, as well. BrianSmithson 11:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]