Wikipedia:Peer review/Kingdom Hearts II/archive1

Kingdom Hearts II

This article is a current FAC. I've halted it for this review. Once this review is finished, the FAC nomination will restart. Any comments to improve this will be very much appreciated. Greg Jones II 23:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

I'd include a seealso template in Gameplay to point back to the same section in KH1 since you're building off that article already.
Gameplay needs more cited refs; a line like "The differences are less pronounced than the last game" is edging on WP:NPOV and though while I agree its true, this statement needs that type of attribution. Same with "In response to criticism, the "Gummi Ship" feature was re-imagined to be "more enjoyable."".
Maybe a Gummi ship screenshot, since it's really only the unique part of play not already covered by the other shots?
The settings and characters section of the plot have the seealsos with lots of references in there, but lacking these on the main page. It may help to reference some of the statements in at least the leads of these sections.
VA section, I wonder if it would help to indicate which language the VAs were in (I'm thinking that it's not obvious which version Ming-Na is in if you're not familiar with the source material). Maybe including (JP) or (NA) after each actor. I would also include another seealso to the Characters page here, since it looks like all the VAs per character are covered there.

Otherwise, I see nothing else apparently bad about the article - it's well rounded, sourced (for the most part), and is as good as the FF7 article (usually one I look back to for comparison as it's been FA'd already, and what looks like you borrowed much of for the article ordering in KH2). --Masem 13:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to address most of your concerns. For the VA section, I'll do that later since I think I can rewrite it to avoid such confusion in the first place. Also, point of pride, I personally would use the FF8 article as the best example (the FF7 article is kind of bloated and the story section has had some serious revision since FAC). Axem Titanium 04:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
The script has spotted the following contractions: won't, wasn't, didn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 13:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Flyer22

Well, this is a very well-written article, I see no problems with the prose and as I read through this article, I was definitely hooked, more so than I am in reading some other articles. For instance, the Gameplay section is beautifully summarized, and the specifics of a new feature introduced in this game titled the Reaction Command, which are special enemy-specific attacks, pops out as intriguing and well-noted.

The Plot section is just right, not too lengthy, not too detailed, just enough to hold a reader's attention but not to overwhelm a reader with information. But I get the feeling from reading this article's plot, that even if its plot was longer than what it is, in the tone that this article presents its plot, it still wouldn't tire out the reader to where they want to look at another section of the article not too long after having landed in its plot section. All in all, this article is one of Wikipedia's best. Definitely deserves to be a featured article here on Wikipedia. Flyer22 07:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]