Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Advance Wars: Dual Strike

Advance Wars: Dual Strike

I've been working on this article since late August of last year. Two months later I submitted it to peer review, at which point it looked like this. I actually thought it was close to FAC at that point. But hey, at least it was short.

And that's pretty much the article's main problem: it's too long. At the 42kb mark, it's probably time to cut down some sections or at least start spinning off content into it's own article. I can probably remove the "New Commanding Officers" section, as List of Advance Wars COs does a good job of covering COs (although the new ones at least deserve a mention in this article). There used to be a Units in Advance Wars, which was a spin off of the Units section, but it was axed after supoosedly violating {{WP:NOR]], WP:V, and WP:NOT. I tried to save the article, but I think I commented too late for it to matter.

I then took it upon myself to expand the Units section to look like Units in Advance Wars (probably a bad idea - as it probably piled on at least a KB or so. The original purpose of the UIAW article was to please those two magical groups described in WP:SIZE: those who want a breif overview of a topic (Units section > What the units are) and those who want to know everything (Units in Advance Wars > What the units do).

So yeah, deletion rant over. I just need advice on what to get rid of, add, branch into new articles, etc... -- gakon5 01:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: Specific numbers (cities take 20 man-turns to capture) and lists of commands (Attack, Supply, etc) are generally not kosher. To the layman, it does not matter if armies have 10 hp or 1000, nor does it matter if the command to capture a city is called "Capture" or "Conquer" or whatever. What is important is the fact that you can capture cities and bases, and how that affects gameplay. Nifboy 03:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I figured out after I added in Unit Commands it was kind of useless. I think the ten HP thing is important to note however, considering a lot of games use variable amounts instead of relative amounts (that is, it's sort of like 10 HP = 100%).

Oh and by the way, to anyone who might ask for refs, I'm currently writing up a section that will include some. I've got that covered. -- gakon5 14:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the differences in presentation (that is, 10 hp vs. 20-100 hp) do not affect the core gameplay of blowing stuff up. If you did put it in, it would go in either a "development" or "reception" section and cite an interview (if it was a developer commenting on it) or a review (if a reviewer made a positive/negative comment on it). Nifboy 17:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although the amount of HP is somewhat trivial, that just means it's a small thing easy to insert into the article. The number ten is also used in relation to capturing buildings and attack strength. -- gakon5 20:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so, I'm going to try and prompt some responses by asking some questions:

Should the New COs section stay? I've basically kept it in there since I started working on the article, but it might be more of that trvial info. The information still deserves to be somewhere, perhaps in List of Advance Wars COs? That is, in a list showing what new people were added to the roster in AW2 and AWDS.
Could any modes be cut? I think the most important ones are the Campaign, War Room, and Survival, although the others are there, and they've got their own sections as they can stand on their own (as sections).

So that's all I can think of for now, although I'm going to go and cut out Unit Commands and maybe revert the Units section back to general summary length. -- gakon5 15:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]