Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Empires: Dawn of the Modern World

Empires: Dawn of the Modern World

I've put quite a bit of work on this article, and it was just recently given a B-class article rating. It would be great if I could get some advice and help on what is needed to get it up to GA status (or maybe even A-class). Thanks. --Clyde Miller 22:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't already, take a look at the good article criteria for the general requirements. Some specific things I noticed though are:

After reading the introductory paragraphs, I was still somewhat in the dark about what you actually do in the game. While there is a gameplay section, the intro paragraphs should provide a general overview of the game, which these ones don't. I'd suggest adding a sentence or two explaining that the aim of the game is to build up an army, etc.
The gameplay paragraph is somewhat confusing (and the prose is a bit sloppy). I have a good idea of what the point of the game is, but only because I've played games like Age of Empires. A reader infamilliar with this kind of game would obtain little from that paragraph. Elaborate on the micromanagement aspect. Explain that the player must build up their army before launching an offensive on his/her opponent. Also, Wikipedia is not a game guide, so try to avoid giving specific details on strategies ("so it isn't as good as formation fighting." for example).
By all means give something like gold as an example of a resource the player must gather, but listing each age, resource and civilisation is unnecessary.
Have a look through some interviews with the developers (if any exist) and try to expand on the development section. What aspects of the game were difficult to impliment? Were there any features that had to be left out? (Though finding this information might be difficult if the company went bust)
Convert the reviews section from a list into prose, and rather than just giving scores, try to quote bits from reviews. What did they like about the game? And what not?
References are important. I have no idea whether anything written in this article is true.

Hope that helps. -- Steel 23:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll look into everything, starting by changing the intro paragrapghs and gameplay stuff. --Clyde Miller 23:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I did my best to fix the suggestions you gave me. See what you think (I may still change around the reviews section).--Clyde Miller 15:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a really quick suggestion, convert the reviews section from a list into paragraphs. -- Steel 15:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the review section, so now I've covered everything on the list. What do you think? Any more suggestions on what to expand or what to do better? --Clyde Miller 13:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try and get some sources for the two lead paragraphs. You know, the article is certainly looking better than it was before. -- Steel 18:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well most of the reviews have that information, so I could use them, but coud I also cite the game itself as a reference? or is that not allowed? --Clyde Miller 20:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. What were you planning on using the game as a source for? But anyway, reviews are the best things to use. -- Steel 20:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References- For GA, you've got enough, I think, but if you want to push it to FA at somepoint, be advised that you'll need 30-40 minimum, and you'll probably need to shoot for 50. As said above, reviews are good. The game itself works, but it's hard to cite- for RPG's you can quote dialogue, but I don't know if that would fly with an RTS. --PresN 22:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added references to the opening section using reviews and Empires Heaven. Is there anything else I should add, or should I put it on the good article review board? Thanks. --Clyde Miller 02:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I could also need help with the Historical Errors section. Does anyone have any input whether I should delete it/ put a reference tag/ other? Thanks. --Clyde Miller 16:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say kill it, and move the Yi Sun-Sin part to the campaign talking about him, the Patton one isn't even an inaccuracy, just misleading. --PresN 18:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I took care of the historical errors section, and am pretty much done with the article. I'll put it as a good article nomination, and wait and see what happens. If it passes as a good article I'll probably withdraw my peer review. If not, well, it's back to the grindstone. Thanks you Steel and PresN who helped me get this far. --Clyde Miller 19:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]