Wikipedia:Peer review/Pool of Radiance/archive1

Pool of Radiance

• 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 July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working to get this article up to GA status and I think I'm not far from it. I feel that this one should one day be ready for an FA, but first thing's first! :) Whatever you think this article needs, or doesn't need, I'm looking for your opinion.

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Question. Is G.M. really worth mentioning even if it didn't give a score in the Reception section? GamerPro64 (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

G.M. gave pages 5 different scores (or something like that) for things like graphics, sound, gameplay, etc., but they didn't have any single unified score, so I didn't put any in. Averaging the scores would have been OR. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've been watching this article, on account of it being by the excellent Dungeons & Dragons taskforce. You guys do great work; keep it up. I do have a few issues with the article, but I don't have time today to go into detail. I'll be back tomorrow or the next day with detailed impressions. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Flattery will get you everywhere! Vantine84 (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• This was my favorite game ever in the world when it came out. I have some stuff I need to do this weekend, but I will return soon and offer some thoughts which may be of help. (If you don't hear from me by August 1 please send a reminder on my talk page.) Thank you for spearheading the push to make it GA and perhaps someday FA! Scartol • Tok 13:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The more, the merrier! :) I don't think there's any limit to how many people can do a review, is there? BOZ (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, I'm here to review it a day later than I said I'd be. Sorry; I could have sworn it was only two days ago. Anyway, here we go:
  • Copyediting will be required throughout. The lead alone is really rough; a few examples:
    • "Pool of Radiance was the first computer adaptation of the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game." Okay, but you say "Pool of Radiance" at the beginning of two sentences in a row. Change it up with stuff like "the game" and "it".
    • "Pools of Radiance is based on the same game mechanics as Advanced Dungeons & Dragons." You just said this. Also, you refer to it here as "Pools of Radiance", with no italicization.
    • "It uses the Gold Box game engine to run a first person perspective, as well as an overhead perspective where characters are represented as icons." The wording is very unclear. "Run" a first person perspective? "as well as an overhead perspective"? I've played the game, so I understand this to some degree, but the uninitiated will be confused. Also, don't forget to put a "-" between first and person. I'm not going to offer wording suggestions, because I don't really have time for copyediting, but here's one for this sentence: "Pool of Radiance was the first game built with the Gold Box engine, which would later be used such games as Neverwinter Nights AOL. It takes place primarily from a first-person perspective, with a secondary top-down perspective for combat encounters." That's rough, but not horrible.
  • Gameplay will need work to reduce the detail and enthusiast knowledge. (Also, I noticed some second-person writing; the article refers to "your foe"). You've done a good job so far, but it could still use more work. Examples:
    • "Retreating characters (or enemies) are vulnerable to free attacks from surrounding enemies." I have perhaps intermediate knowledge of D&D's workings, but this is still a little unclear to me. For someone with beginner or no knowledge, it would make no sense.
    • "Players are able to toggle through a range of different menus during gameplay." Excessive use of gamer-centric terms.
    • In addition, the section is probably too long, with paragraph sizes too random. Try to condense the details to only the most necessary for someone to understand the game, per summary style. Also, by keeping paragraph sizes at least reasonably standardized, the reader is provided a more relaxed, flowing reading experience. Seeing a huge paragraph followed by a small one makes it feel like working through the large one is a chore.
  • As for Plot, try to keep the separation between Setting and Plot summary clear. The first paragraph of Plot summary contains a lot of information that is redundant with what we've already read in Setting. The Plot summary section aside from that is pretty good. However, particularly because of the game's non-linear and player-directed nature, it's going to need more citations. Events like "After defeating his guards, the party refuses his offer to join his side and engages the dragon boss in a deadly battle, emerging victorious", for example, almost sound like they could have gone another way. Wikipedia covers general plotlines; if multiple choices exist, mention them. An official game guide (if available) would probably be all you need. If not, there's hopefully something else.
  • The paragraphs in Development needs to be condensed. The first is decently sized, but then it trails off into short, stringy paragraphs, the last of which is only a sentence. The Copy protection section should also be merged into Development, as it isn't big enough to warrant its own subheading.
  • Merge Release into Development. Trim overlapping information and make as few subsections as possible; this will add much-needed meat to Development. As for the things that can't be merged (sequel, novel, a few of the other details), put them into a Legacy subsection at the end of Reception. The game is so influential that it should be fairly easy to find more material. For example, the final paragraph of reception.
  • Reception is the problem section. This one will probably take more work than any of the others. First, get more reviews. One of the best resources for old game reviews ([1]) tells me that you're missing the super-necessary ACE. Also, the CGW review is not used, only a preview; it shouldn't be hard to find the real thing. I don't know how you're going to find the rest, but you need them. Also, find some for the NES version. Second, trim this section; it's huge. You go into unbelievably elaborate detail about the game's rules, and the extreme undue weight placed on the Dragon magazine review would be cause to fail the article at GAN for NPOV. You dedicate FIVE paragraphs to it. Under any circumstances, that is far beyond overkill. Basically: cut the section's size in half, remove the majority of the Dragon magazine review, get more reviews, add a Legacy subsection.
• So there you have it. It's impressively detailed for an article about an old game, but it still needs work. And find a few copyeditors to go through the whole thing, preferably several times. The prose is rough throughout; I only used the lead to highlight examples. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, and I forgot: cut the credits section. Any important names can be mentioned in context during the Development section. For the rest, leave it to Mobygames. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! This should be very helpful. :) It'll be a lot of work, but it will be worth it. BOZ (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Levi's comments
I’m glad Jimmy is helping out by reviewing, I think these old fantasy games are his forté. I agree with him that some general copyediting needs to be done. He mentioned a lot of great points that I won’t repeat, but some specific examples are:

• Some sections contain words that may not fit the tone of an encyclopedia article or a little non-NPOV. Examples in Gameplay are “Just like in a regular AD&D game…” (the “just like” should be “as in” or something similar), the word “neatly” as in “neatly divided”, “devastating”, “very strategic” (probably don’t need “very”).
• In Plot summary, Tyranthraxus is referred to as a “boss”. While that is probably true, “leader” may be a better word because boss implies a more informal relationship. Citing the game’s use of the word boss is OK though. The word “deadly” in the last sentence may not be necessary.
• What do you think about using a multi-console review template for the Reception section, like {{Video game multiple console reviews}}?

Most of these issues are relatively trivial (especially for GAN) and can easily be fixed by a copyeditor. I’m willing to copyedit myself if you like, after some of the changes that Jimmy suggested about the layout are implemented. Vantine84 (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds great! No time at the present, but hope to pick it back up tomorrow or soon thereafter. BOZ (talk) 11:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there have been a number of important suggestions proposed here, and you're hard at work implementing them. As for my involvement, how about this: When you're done with these repairs, let me know and I'll have a fresh look? That way I'm not likely to repeat things, and we can take things one step at a time.

Also, there's a push on right now to include alternative text for images. You'll want to make sure you include this. Scartol • Tok 13:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm ready whenever you are! I'll read up on alt-text; I just realized earlier today that I forgot to include a caption for the infobox image.  :) BOZ (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Scartol

At long last, here is my review. Let me start by saying kudos! This article is exhaustively-researched and generally a pleasure to read. You've clearly done some serious work to flesh out all the sections, and you are to be congratulated for it.

The comments below are based on the assumption that you plan to take this thing to FAC. I strongly suggest a motto of "measure twice, cut once" for that process — the more you check things before FAC, the less nightmarish the process will be. These points are for your consideration only; there is no need to provide green checkmarks or seek my approval for the next stages.

Lead

• The article's lead should be a general summary of all the major elements in the article. We have good info here on gameplay and plot, but we need more on development and reception. (I suggest one paragraph for each.) I moved the single sentence about reception to the end of the lead (to mirror the article's structure, which is generally preferred); this should obviously be expanded.

• It's good to avoid overlinking in the lead. Because you've linked to them in the main article text, I've removed the links to race and class in the lead.

• Players can hire and interact with non-player characters to further the storyline. This bit of info seems odd to have by itself — if we mention this rather standard item about RPGs, shouldn't we mention others, like buying and selling items?

Gameplay

• Surely the NES version was one of the lesser-played (and therefore less-recognized, not to mention less colorful) versions. Why use this one, and not a PC screenshot?

• I noted that mages can use small knives — this is based on my own memories of the game (and standard allowances in many RPGs). If it's wrong, please correct me. (I also withdrew the bit about how mages function like artillery or sharpshooters, since it seemed a bit unencyclopedic.)

Plot

• This image is tagged with a warning. It needs to replaced with a smaller version. You should check all the images carefully to make sure they comply with all NFCC regulations.

• Moonsea is a redirect — you should make a more accurate link to guarantee against deadlinks, and check other links to make sure they all go where they're supposed to go.

• I think the part of the first paragraph in "Setting" that begins "According to the story..." should be moved to the "Plot summary". Setting should should focus exclusively on the where and when.

Development

• The first part of this section reads like a laundry list of names. To break it up, I recommend reorganizing it a bit so that you tell who did what, and then say a bit about what they did. (For example, after you name Chuck Kroegel as the leader of the development team, give the bit about what he said the main challenge was.)

• I assume we don't have a more specific date for the Atari ST version? If not, it would read more smoothly to combine that info with the Mac edition; say something like "Versions for the Atari ST and Apple Macintosh were released later."

• Could we not get a short description of what changes (to appearance, sound, etc) took place with the NES port?

Reception

• I think the bit about the Computer Gaming World review discussing the transfer of character to Silver Blades would be better placed in the "Legacy" section.

• The comments from The Games Machine about similarities to Bard's Tale feel redundant. Maybe you could combine all such comments into one paragraph, starting perhaps with a phrase like "Several reviewers noted similarities between Pool of Radiance and earlier games like Bard's Tale."

• Note how the tenses are mixed in this sentence: "The reviewer was critical that Pool of Radiance is not original in its presentation and that the colors are a little drab, but concludes..." Whether you use past or present tense for review commentary, you should be consistent. (And, annoying as it might be, you should go through the rest of this section and make sure it's consistent throughout.)

• I don't know that we need thorough summaries of every review the game got — I'd say one paragraph about the praise and one about the criticisms would suffice (and then one about similarities to other games is good too).

• Oops! I see that one of the earlier reviews advised you to pack 'em in! I suppose this is a matter of preference — my advice is to review other video game FAs and follow their lead.

• The phrase "Hartley, Patricia, and Kirk Lesser" is confusing. Are these three people? Are they all in the Lesser family? Clarify?

• Unless you're quoting an entire sentence, don't put the final punctuation mark inside the quotation mark. (See WP:QUOTE for more info.) I've been correcting this as I find it, but you should go through again before FAC and make sure it's consistent.

• Aside from the name, is there any connection between the 1988 game and Ubisoft's 2001 game? The link is unclear to the reader.

Good luck with this article! As I said, I spent many happy hours as a teenager in the city of Phlan, and I'm very glad to see people devoting so much love and attention to securing the Pool's rightful place in the hall of respectable Wikipedia articles. Please let me know if you have any questions. Scartol • Tok 14:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :)

I am not necessarily planning on taking this to FAC, at least insofar as I have no current plan to do so, but that may be a long-term goal. That said, there's nothing wrong now in doing something that would help get an FA later. :)

For the lead, if we’re doing one paragraph each of gameplay, plot, development, and reception, I'd say the development paragraph is already in the first paragraph, and I can't see a compelling reason to switch that into being the third paragraph. :) Otherwise, I agree on your suggested structure.

Yeah, you're right. I suppose I expected to see some details about names of people involved and/or what machines they used to develop it. But this is covered in the body. Good work adding the reception bits. Scartol • Tok 12:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

For the combat image, we had this one before I started working on the article, and I don't have a better image available, so I was going to just go with that until something better comes along. :) RJHall dug up the other image we have now (which I agree needs to be reduced), so maybe he will find something better for the combat scene?

Regarding mages using knives, you are probably correct, but I didn't see this in any RS, so I've removed it.

What about me!? I'm a reliable source! =D Scartol • Tok 12:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as release dates go, it was hard enough to find what I do have, so I doubt I can find anything more specific without some assistance. As for the NES port and Mac editions, all of that was written by other people without me finding any sources for them; the only changes I could really make would be to remove stuff.

Yep, a previous reviewer recommended me to pack 'em in, and I'm sticking to that! :) I went to all that trouble to find stuff just to remove it? I don't think so. ;)

Yeah, I've often been frustrated by conflicting mandates from various reviewers. Listen to your heart. Scartol • Tok 12:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hartley Lesser, Patricia Lesser, and Kirk Lesser are often referred to as "The Lessers". Don't know if they're related, but I assume so. If there's a way to make that clearer, please advise.

Rephrased. I'm not sure it flows as smoothly as I'd like, but I think it's a bit less confusing now. Scartol • Tok 12:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No idea what connection "Ruins of Myth Drannor" has with the original game, aside from the name-grab. I'd be fine with removing the whole mention, to be honest, and maybe leaving it at the "see also" hatnote at the top of the article. BOZ (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's weird. This review names it as a sequel — perhaps we should put that in the article?

I removed Hillsfar from the See Also section, since that's best used only for articles that aren't linked in the body text. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 12:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again! I don't see how "Ruins of Myth Drannor" is a sequel in anything but name, so I'm going to leave that off for now. If I see something explicitly from either the game's publisher, or from WotC, or some other source that details just how it's a sequel, I'll revise my opinion. :)

That said, I think it's finally ready... nothing can stop me now! ;) BOZ (talk) 12:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)