Wikipedia:Peer review/Virtual Magic Kingdom/archive1

Virtual Magic Kingdom

I think this is a great article, full of useful technical and historical information about an interesting game. I've put a lot of work into it. I'd like to know whether y'all feel it's ready to become a FA candidate, or whether there's more than can be done to improve it. - Brian Kendig 02:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two major things: an inordinate number of lists (should be converted to prose when possible) and no references (which is necessary for FA). Pentawing 06:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What would be a way around these problems? I don't see a way to turn those lists into prose without making a mess of them, and there really are no references on the subject other than the game itself. - Brian Kendig 12:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I find works sometimes, at least in cases where the lists are not readily convertible into prose, is to use multi-column tables, usually with {{prettytable}} to set the style. — RJH 14:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning references, how about a published game guide and outside reviews? The point behind references is that one can be assured that the game actually does exist and that others can vouch for it. Pentawing 21:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above seems fairly straightforward - anyone have any other constructive comments on the article? - Brian Kendig 03:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lead too short - should be at least two solid paragraphs for an article this size (see WP:LEAD)
A lot of really short paragraphs and some one-sentence paragraphs. Long paragraphs generally == good flow. Especially pronounced in "Games" where its basically a list masquarading as sepearte paragraphs :).
"Items that can belong to an avatar" etc. - could use some more description of the items
Some parts read like a game/HOWTO guide, like "Characters". Someone once told me that an encyclopedia is not "prescriptive" but is "descriptive".... hope that helps.
Of course the list thing mentioned by the previous reviewer

Generally neat article... I think once some of the lists get turned into prose it will be a better reading length too Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 06:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]