Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
{{Video game reviews}} is not required. Traditional reviews, or those that provide some type of score, may be few and far between for some games. If you only have a couple of such reviews which could be used to fill the table, consider foregoing the table and instead simply state these in the body of reception text. All reviews must be referenced.
The main issues are ease of reading, i.e. the section/formatting and overly detailed sections. Work on those and GAN should be fine. It has the potential for FAC and between this peer review, GAN, and possibly an A-class review and copyedit you should get the help you need. Keep up the good work! — Mr. V (t – c) 10:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Editors should structure articles with consistent, reader-friendly layouts and formatting (which are detailed in this guide). Where more than one style or format is acceptable under the MoS, one should be used consistently within an article and should not be changed without good reason. Edit warring over stylistic choices is unacceptable. [b]
For advice on writing style and formatting in a bullet-point format, see Wikipedia:Styletips; For summaries of some Wikipedia protocols and conventions, see Wikipedia:Dos and don'ts; If you don't want to use wikitext markup, try Wikipedia:VisualEditor instead; To ask a question, see Wikipedia:Questions to locate the appropriate venue(s)
Text formatting in citations should follow, consistently within an article, an established citation style or system. Options include either of Wikipedia's own template-based Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2, and any other well-recognized citation system. Parameters in the citation templates should be accurate.
The first instance of the recommendation that I found in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting was added at this edit 25 September 2006. "If looking for a good rule of thumb, do not italicize words that appear in an English language dictionary." But, that text came from Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
Reviews are listed in a unique format. Each review is recorded chronologically alongside the alongside the name of the item , its namespace number, and a timestamp indicating when it was added to the category. Reviews are formatted according to {}. The short name, long name, category and listing are displayed below.
For how editors use peer reviews, see WP:PR/Instructions. For an overview of the technical process, see Wikipedia:Peer review/Tools . This adds a toolbox to peer review pages.