Wikipedia:Peer review/The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass/archive1

The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass

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

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to FAC soon. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to start opposing these articles when they get to FAC because you didn't come up with a more intriguing PR statement. Anyway, on the subject of images:
- Image:Zelda ph.jpg needs to be reduced in size to 256px horizontal, expand and detail the FUR
- On the gameplay images, Image:Sailing in Phantom Hourglass.jpg and Image:Legendofzeldaphantomhourglassmulatiplayer.jpg; I'm not sure you can get both to fly by WP:NFCC. Sure, they are two different aspects of the game, but "you draw a path for your sailboat to follow" doesn't really require an image for illustration; Image:Sailing in Phantom Hourglass.jpg has a stronger FUR as currently written.
- Image:Zeldagold ds closed.jpg should be fine as a free image since I believe it was determined at a FTC that the triforce isn't a copyrighted logo, and thus a derivative work.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beefed up the cover art FUR. So, should I just remove the multiplayer image? The sailing also helps to give an idea of how the top-bottom screens view looks like. Gary King (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looks pretty good, but some of the references need to be looked at to make sure they are reliable; Gamedaily, Hyper, GamerNode, Game Freak, Straight Gamer, and The Hylia. They are unknown to me in terms of reliability, and it would be great to find out if they are reliable or not, otherwise they'll have to be replaced. Other than that, copyedit it and it should be good to go. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already marked a few of those as unreliable; I've marked a few more now. I mark them now and then get to them when I find a suitable reference to replace them with. Gary King (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]