Wikipedia:Peer review/Drakengard/archive1

Drakengard

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… the article seems in a good enough state to consider as an FAC. But I wish to have other editors comment on what the article might need before that point, or if it can be upgraded at all.

Thanks, ProtoDrake (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from CR4ZE

I reviewed the article's GAN and it was an easy pass at that level. I do, of course, have a couple of suggestions.

Drop the Distribution field from the Infobox if it's not notable or ambiguous. ~~(see Template:Video game reviews#Guidelines).~~

Oops. I meant Template:Infobox video games#Syntax guide. "Use this field (media) for games where at least one of the platforms it was released on uses several types of media (e.g. Windows, MSX), or leaves the method of distribution ambiguous." CR4ZE (t • c) 07:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph of the lede is all plot but no gameplay.
Try to reduce instances of "the game". "It" will often suffice. There are six instances of "the game" in the last paragraph of the lede, for example. Plenty more throughout the body of the article.
The only thing that I feel the article is missing in terms of content is some more on its reception in Japan. I'd be trying to track down something from Famitsu, for example. Surely they would've run a review on the game?
The two-line paragraph about the mobile phone port in Gameplay is a little awkward. I'd be looking at ways it could be merged into another paragraph (is there somewhere in Development?) or expanded to a three or four line paragraph.
Gameplay could use more wikilinks, particularly for things like level cap, experience points and other game terms.
The last paragraph on the alternative endings of the Story could do with a little snipping.

That's it really. Running the article through a copy-edit wouldn't hurt, but otherwise it's a well-written article that wouldn't fare too badly at FAC. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've got a lot of them cleared up. Anything else? Do, please do, point anything out. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't click to me that the first paragraph of the lede had covered the gameplay. Although, it probably fits better in the second paragraph anyway. The other changes look good, too. I'd say that the article would do well at FAC and I'd be moving to support. I'll continue to go through the article and look at how to keep the prose squeaky-clean. I'd keep this peer review open for a little while longer to get some feedback from other editors first, of course. Overall, it's a great article. CR4ZE (t • c) 08:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]