From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Lost FA status mainly because of poor info on the reception of the game. I'm sure with a little work we can return this to FA status.


Thanks, Buc ( talk) 18:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Dihydrogen Monoxide

Since reception was the issue, here are some notes on that...you can get feedback on the rest if you like - just ask and I'll do it when I have time!

Might as well just review it all. Buc ( talk) 16:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Will do when I get the chance. dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 23:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Shouldn't the metacrtic review box score be based on reviews, not votes?
  • IGN shouldn't be in italics in references (etc.) - noticed this on ref 81
  • "The game was generally well-received by the media, and was given high scores by some of the most prominent gaming critics." - this is kinda meaningless, as the reviews box and subsequent commentary should give this impression...
  • First para of reception is awkward...basically just listing scores for the first half, then you start quoting etc. It basically needs re-organisation; eg. quote IGN when you first give the score (more than just "incredible")
  • "Further criticism came from the website Adrenaline Vault" - if it's a website, it shouldn't be in italics (if it's a magazine, it should).
  • A lot more general receptive commentary is necessary for such a major game...plenty of VG FAs do this well, but basically a short paragraph like that isn't enough...
  • "Members of GameFAQs ranked it the 8th best" - 8th best WHAT? (same with next sentences)

dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 10:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply