Wikipedia:Peer review/Legacy of Kain: Defiance/archive1
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has taken major steps towards being a better quality article. Citations are provided where needed, more can be added if found necessary, notability has been established through secondary sources, and the article is of reasonable length (to me at least). I'd like suggestions on how to improve the article further.
Thanks, The Clawed One (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Also, as a note, most of the edits made the last few weeks were by me. This is the most recent revision to the article prior to the series of cleanups I've made: [1] The Clawed One (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the request at my talk page to review this article, I appreciate that! I hope the below helps. Note that since I think I have reviewed articles you wrote (or co-wrote with S@bre I think) before, I omit some explanations here and there. Feel free to ask for more information on any specific point.
- The lead section needs to be expanded. Try to include the following data: release dates, a random aggregate review site score, a gameplay summary ("action adventure" can be a lot of things. try to grab the essence in a sentence or two).
Done - I would like to see some introduction to the general story before being rushed into the series' plot. Also, some reviewer must have some point remarked on the obvious Christian mythology present in the series. This seems of note, and fits in the story section. Furthermore, the story section details on "Kain's part" and "Raziel's part", before I even know what this whole division into parts means. It is general practise to put a Gameplay section above the Story section, perhaps this would work to explain the parts thing. See below. Kudos on the nice story description otherwise.
- Two "standard" sections are missing: Gameplay and Development. Check some of the example articles on WP:VG/A for good examples on Gameplay sections. The Notes section could be merged into any new Development section.
- The article uses only few independent references. This needs to be improved throughout the article. Using the reviews as sources for just about anything usually helps.
- In the Reception section, adding Gamespy is close to mandatory. Especially because it's a low score, the exclusion of this major site may be seen as "selective". If other reviews (check the really positive and really negative ones on Mobygames) add some new or surprising criticism, add them as well. Done
- Screenshots, perhaps? Done
User:Krator (t c) 22:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
PS: I would appreciate marking points in this review with a {{done}} template, if any edits are made because of it.
Thank you for the assistance. I agree that screenshots would be helpful, but unfortunately I have absolutely zero knowledge of the copyright laws and the policies, etc, about uploading images of any sort, so I have no idea how to acquire them. As for the rest, I'll work of them and mark them with the appropriate template you provided. The Clawed One (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 05:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm currently looking for more independent sources regarding the game's development and the series' allusions to various mythos as a whole. My thanks for the review and I'll continue to work to increase the article's quality in the future. The Clawed One (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- From the instructions: "Please do not include any images, such as done/not done templates with tick/cross graphics" APR t 02:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I was told to do so. The Clawed One (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- And I didn't know it was not allowed in kindly asking to do so :) - who made up those rules anyway? User:Krator (t c) 14:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)