Wikipedia:Peer review/Zelda II: The Adventure of Link/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 better than the first Zelda's article. I really felt like I had an idea as to what the game actually was. But a screenshot of the overworld, some more links and references, and some historical context would be nice. Did it have any effect on the console wars? Did Miyamoto take any flack for it? How involved was he? Plus the Talk: page is still messy. PS: the introduction has some strange-sounding locutions. You might want to scrutinize that. --Maru (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a few years since the last peer review, and i feel that we may be well on our way to FA, and was hoping for some more tipsDurinsBane87 19:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 21:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Few comments:

It's short on references, there are whole paragraphs and sections without cites.
Is there no more information on the development and reception. At the moment, it seems very focused on the gameplay and is predominantly in-universe.
There are a few stubby sections and paragraphs. Try to link it together to encourage a better flow.
For featured-quality, the images could do with more detailed fair use rationales.

It's good, but still needs some work. Trebor 23:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The gameplay section should probably be consolidated. It doesn't need to be sectioned off. It could probably also benefit with citations from the game manual or a player's guide.
The development section needs a good deal of expansion. Explain the process of developing this particular game, like how the story was written. Listing the developers isn't enough.
Check old gaming magazines for reviews, the reception section is empty.
Try and weed out details that are trivial. This is a general encyclopedia artical, not a fan's guide.
As suggested above, more sources and citations, and detail those fair use rationales for the specific use. Jay32183 20:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An additional note: complete dates should always link to the year in general for user preference purposes. Only link to year in video games when the year stands on its own. Jay32183 23:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]