I think everyone editing the following article would say that they would like to push the article FA. To help us achieve this, we would like heavy scrutiny to reach perfection (or near levels) on this article, and hopefully it would be featured one day. --Vinni3 (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No time to do a large critique of the article, but I saw two things while reading the lead:
- You don't need citations in the lead. The lead is a summary of the article, meaning that anything said in it should be mentioned in the rest of the article, with appropriate citations.
- If you're aiming for FA status, the prose will need work. Just from the lead, I could tell that it needed polish. A general rule for Wikipedia prose: if the lead needs work, the whole article needs work. Therefore, I'm going to assume that this problem extends throughout. I would suggest that you locate one or more copyeditors to take care of this problem, as a failure to meet criterion 1a of the FA criteria has sunk many otherwise-great FACs. A good way to find copyeditors is to look at recent video game FAs. For example, Halo Wars (yes; I was a copyeditor on that. No; I don't have time to work on this one).
- Again, sorry I can't be more thorough. It looks like this peer review could use more comments. Hopefully someone with more time will come along. Good luck. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]