Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Day of Defeat

Day of Defeat

I submitted this last year, but it was never reviewed. The article is almost to a completed version and I doubt there will be any more updates to DoD. More information is needed about DoD:S and copyediting is needed to improve grammar, etc. --Major.T 19:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making a quick run down of the article, pointing out problematic sentences...

"The reinforcements originate at spawn and can be composed of anywhere from 1 soldier to the entire team." It doesn't seem to say all that much.
"Like other Half-Life mods," this is the first time it's mentioned that DoD is a HL mod; the obscure "GoldSrc" in the infobox doesn't count because you have to know what GoldSrc is to know it's the HL engine.
List of controls baaad. Rewrite it into the gameplay section as actions the player can take. Assume the reader isn't particularly familiar with FPSs.
Ye need sources, matey: real-world information. Do some honest-to-goodness research (even if that just means looking up reviews on IGN). Your history section also needs sources.

That's the cursory outlook. Copyedit it, cite sources, trim some cruft, cite sources, bring some context in to explain it to those who have never played an FPS in their life, cite sources, cite sources, and CITE SOURCES. Nifboy 22:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glancing through the article, the Classes and Weapons section (which, by the way, is a violation of WP:MOSHEAD) is pretty game guide-y. The Controls section is total game guide material, and desperately needs to be cut. Try merging the discussion of possible actions into Gameplay and just getting rid of the rest. The lead needs expansion, and should better summarize the article, per WP:LEAD. You also need to mention the game's real world critical reception. The images need fair use rationales (see WP:FAIR). And some of the images seem to be purely decorative, necessitating their removal. Bots probably don't deserve their own section, and should be merged into some other section. Finally, the article is completely unsourced. See WP:CITE on how you can fix this major problem. JimmyBlackwing 12:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]