Wikipedia:Peer review/Conan (2007 video game)/archive1

Conan (2007 video game)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to bring this article to Featured Article status. My key concerns are the prose, grammar, and reading "flow". I appreciate comments to help address this. Any critique on the contents and presentation are also welcomed. During the article's good article nomination, Ashnard have brought up several issues at Talk:Conan (2007 video game)/GA1, so interested parties might want a look through to see if certain issues need further discussion on.

Many thanks, Jappalang (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

• I think the article is pretty good already and the main thing is to polish the writing and clean up a few places. For example in the lead Despite the reputation of the franchise, Conan sold poorly and THQ considered it a financial loss. Something is either a loss or it is not (that's what accountants are for), so I would write something like ... Conan sold poorly and was a financial loss for THQ. or later in the lead Composer Mike Reagan also received acclaim for his music for the game. He later gave live performances of the game's soundtrack at Video Games Live shows. It can not be also as no one else is said the have received acclaim. I would rewrite it as something like Composer Mike Reagan received acclaim for his music for the game, and later gave live performances of the soundtrack at Video Games Live shows. I would ask at WP:PRV for help with a copyedit.

  Thank you for pointing those out. I would appreciate more of this. I had invited several copyeditors to participate in the peer review but so far, none have joined. I do plan to ask a copyeditor to go through the article before sending it to FAC, but would like to get any possible content issues out of the way first. I will go through the rest of your suggestions later. Jappalang (talk) 03:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb to allow viewer preferences to take over.

  Done. Jappalang (talk) 04:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• I would explain who / what Conan is before talking about the locations. Someone who knows little or nothing about Conan will also not understand what Stygia is.

  With two reviewers pointing this issue (Ashnard being the first), I add the context of Hyboria and Conan the Barbarian as the first sentence (and listing the locations specifically as locations of the fictional world). Would this do? Jappalang (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

  I see this a providing context for the reader - see WP:PCR. I think it makes more sense to change the order and talk about the fictional locations after the fictional main character is described. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Awkward sentence Conan is the protagonist in many of Howard's literature and has become the figurehead of a franchise. Perhaps Conan is the protagonist in many of Howard's stories and a franchise has been built around the character.? Also why is Howard referred to by last name only, but Franzetta has first name too? Be consistent

  Suggestion taken. Howard is referred by his last name here in the subsection as he was already identified at the start of the section. Frazetta is named in full as this is his first mention in the main article text. Is this fine? Jappalang (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

  OK for full name for Franzetta - thanks for explaining. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• In the reception section I would identify critics by name and perhaps quote more of their reviews - it is helpful to know who said what, so add specifics to Many critics complained that Conan copied many ideas from God of War.[2][3][4][5] A few reviewers, however, found this forgivable and stated that the game was made to be fun without any higher ambitions.[39][43] for example.

  It could be a matter of preference as I prefer writing in prose summing up the reviewers' opinions; I tend to find "quote farms" less clear in presenting this and harder to picture in an encyclopaedia. A few quotes could, however, flesh out the articles and your suggestion was timely in helping to reduce the amount of references following a statement; I shifted a reference with a particularly intriguing quote from a source. Did it work? Jappalang (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

  I am not a video game person, but if I were reading a movie article, then knowing who the critics were would influence my opinion of their reviews. I like the quotes added, but I do not think it would harm the article to say things like X, Y and Z thought it was too gory, while A, B and C praised the game play (or wahtever). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Second look - there are several places in the article where the word choices could be improved, some of which I already pointed out. Since FA requires professional level writing, these are a problem for FAC. here are two more examples:

• The barbarian's profile was further elevated in pop culture by Frank Frazetta's portraits of him.[7][12] I tend to think of portraits as being of real people - weren't most of them paintings (a possible better word) used as book covers?
• Several places have short sentences that could be combined, for example Instead of finding treasure, he frees Graven from a magical prison. Graven is a wizard who had been imprisoned for his transgressions. could be something like Instead of finding treasure, he frees Graven, a wizard who had been imprisoned in a magical prison for his transgressions.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. AnnaFrance has graciously agreed to copyedit the article next week, so the article's language should be improved by that time. Jappalang (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 12:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)