Talk:Zelda II: The Adventure of Link

Zelda II GA review

Here are the areas to improve to meet GA status and included are FA notes;

• Super vague rationales on the images, say exactly what they are demonstrating and why it is important that it be demonstrated.
• Is TASvideos a reliable source?
• wikilink all publishers in the references.
• replace the gamefaqs reference, don't think they are a reliable source.
• reference 8 is improperly formatted
• The Kasuto reference is of questionable reliability check and if it isn't reliable replace it
• The last image doesn't seem very important to demonstrate that town, perhaps replace it with an image for the gameplay section that shows him battling his evil twin in the game? That becomes a recurring feature in the zelda series, shows up in Ocarina of Time as well.
• Sales data, for america and/or japan if possible.
• expand out the reception section, more detailed account of the games failings, as its good side seems well represented.
• Try to find more music development information and more development information, especially for FA
• Add more references to the experience levels paragraph, the music section, the versions section, and the legacy section. As a general rule, they should not go too long without a reference and sometimes it does.
• check gamerankings for a rating and if there is one add it.
• as a bonus, as it may come out in FA, try to find Japanese reaction at release and or sales data.
• For FA, focus on having a well developed Development section and copyedit well.
• That will get you an FA and a strong GA. Do that, and let me know how it goes :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Just found this in the archived peer review, here are some suggestions as to the kind of information to hunt for for the development section;

• Did it have any effect on the console wars?
• Did Miyamoto take any flack for it?
• How involved was he?
• Explain the process of developing this particular game, like how the story was written.

Good luck! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• I just remembered, make sure to put references next to each of the scores in the video game reception box. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Sorry to bother you with another one, but a great thing to remember is when the game was released and what reviewers were around and popular then. Good job having Nintendo Power, see if Game Pro and/or another then-popular popular video game reviewer reviewed it. It's good to have initial release reaction. Great job so far! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Alright, all done pretty much. Let me know what you think. I'll see if this article even has a chance of going through WP:FAC. Gary King (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Passed, good job! This article has been transformed lately, and you have been a big part of that :) Let's look at what to do for FA;

1. About two one more sentences should be added to the reception section, hopefully from reviewers like Gamepro, highlighting the games pros and cons.
2. Try to make sure that the reviews that came out during the games release come first.
3. legacy section probably needs 2 more references in it.
4. find japanese reaction to the games release, such as what its Famitsu score was, or if it was on a Famitsu top 100 list or something.
5. build up the development section and the music section, see the above suggestions for information to find; also, if there is any music reception, like peoples opinions for good or bad, put that in the reception section
6. When this goes to FA candidacy, be prepared to switch out some of the references, because some of them are of uncertain reliability.
7. Finally, focus on copyediting to get your brilliant prose, league of copyeditors, Tony's Guide, peer review, or just do it yourself once you get the hang of it :) Good luck! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The Missing Link -- Shortage of Computer Ships Delay Zelda II

I know this has been mentioned before but it would be cool to fit this info into the article. Nintendo ran into a shortage of computer chips, delaying the North American release date of Zelda II. This info is cited in (I think) the second issue of Nintendo Power, but is also referenced in the June/July issue of Nintendo Fun Club on page 11 (the precursor to Nintendo Power and the last issue ever published. Here's the text:

"Where's Link? All the fun of The Legend of Zelda conintues in Zelda II - The Adevnture of Link, right? Righr! But When? As soon as we can get more computer chips! There has been a shortage. But we have used the waiting time well by making Zelda II - The Adventure of Link and even more xicting, more challenging game - coming this fall!".

That's verbatium from the magizine.

I AM ERROR.

Probaly needs to be mentioned.JIMfoamy1 (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Version differences - inaccuries, and a few ideas

I noticed that the "Versions" sub-section under "Development" contains a few inaccuracies. I'm not sure how to go about improving the section myself, so I'll leave an outline of what these differences actually are here, and maybe another editor can include and source them in the article.

First off, the current article inaccuries:

• "In the English release, the dungeons each have different colors, whereas in the FDS version they are all gray."

Incorrect. About 60% of the palaces use the gray palette, while some of the latter ones use a blue palette. The final palace uses a yellow / orange palette. The palaces also tend to alternate with different elements of the palace. For example, all palace entrances use the gray palette, but the inner-palace areas may use a different one. This generally starts to occur around the 4th palace, I believe. The main thing with the overseas version is that the game features a different block set for every palace, along with a palette swap. In the FDS version, all palaces use the same block set, but a few them still use palette swaps.

Now, a couple of other version differences that weren't mentioned: (not necessarily consideration for inclusion, but this is left to the editors' discretion)

• Gooma, the 5th palace boss, is not present in the FDS version. Instead, another version of the helmethead boss takes his place. (maybe this could be used to elaborate on the sentence that mentions dungeon changes)

• the difficulty was slightly increased for the overseas release. The experience values were switched around somewhat, making certain areas / encounters more tedious, and some enemies no longer give experience altogether. In addition to this, the level-up system makes it easier to increase Link's levels (this is already mentioned in the article) and thus makes the game easier. This is mostly based on my playthrough of each version, and how the overall difficulty compares. The FDS version feels substantially easier to play through. (this is based on having played through each version many times to compare them)

I hope this information helps! I wouldn't know where to find the appropriate references to include this info in the article, however. (although, I would point out that the article currently does not cite any of its version differences claims) 74.242.104.128 (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)