Wikipedia:Peer review/Transformers: Fall of Cybertron/archive1

Transformers: Fall of Cybertron

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 I'm planning on taking this to GAN in the next few months. I have copied my current to-do list below which currently consists of replacing some unverified sources. But after having stared at this page far too many times I'm afraid I'm missing some of the things I should normally catch. I'd also like outside perspective as to the completeness of the article and the clarity of game-specific information to an outsider.

Thanks, Teancum (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to give this a more in-depth look later, but one thing I notice, and this is me saying this as an old school Transformers fan, is that the second paragraph of the lead might be taking too much for granted in terms of story. Assuming this article should be readable to a general audience, it seems like a random reader will not understand what's going on. I could be wrong, and they can always click the links to other pages for more information, I suppose, but nowhere in the lead are we told just what a Transformer is, for instance. I don't have time to read the whole thing right now, but I don't see anything about that in the synopsis section either. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've added information to the lead and Synopsis --Teancum (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a few copy edits, but I see one spot I can't fix: "Veteran Transformers voice actors Peter Cullen and Fred Tatasciore were confirmed to reprise their respective roles of Optimus Prime, Ratchet and Megatron during E3." You have two actors and three characters, so the "respective roles" part is confusing.

Noted. Tatasciore voices three characters, so I rewrote the first two sentences of that section. --Teancum (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the reception section, I don't think you should convert the the Giant Bomb rating to a percentage. Assuming the lowest theoretical percentage a game could get is 0%, and the lowest theoretical score a game could get on a five star system is one star, 3/5 is actually 50%. But if the lowest score is no stars, or half a star, the conversion would be different. I think it counts as WP:OR to do that conversion. Sorry, I know that's a bit nitpicky.

Yes, however Metacritic averages a 3/5 score as such. If necessary I will cite Metacritic in this instance. --Teancum (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The characters table: is that the best format for the information? It might be that we're used to thinking of huge groups of transformers and listing them all, but I wonder if it's really necessary to have every character in the game in a table. Is Laserbeak's minor role notable enough to list?, for example? Why not just add a little more detail to the gameplay section about the other characters that are playable, and let the non-playable characters that are significant be elucidated upon in the story section naturally through prose? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I typically don't like tables, either, but in instances where the information is clear and concise and will pacify IP edits to place one I leave it in place. I've done similar things to articles such as Marvel: Ultimate Alliance and Transformers: War for Cybertron to keep unhelpful edits at bay while providing information to perspective readers quickly. In such cases character cast is a point of deciding a purchase, and while we don't cater to that crowd, it doesn't disrupt article flow in any way. --Teancum (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read the whole page, but the lede mentions a reimagined Dinobots origin story, but doesn't say what it's reimagined from (the previous game, previous series, the movies). More importantly, I couldn't find any mention of this reimagining in the article. The same sentence also doesn't say what the other characters' subplots were adapted from, where typically something is adapted from another work. —Ost (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed. I simplified it as a blanket "G1" origins variation, even though G1 has multiple origins stories. I couldn't differentiate enough, but interviews were fairly clear that it was an "alternate take" on the origin, so that should be sufficient. --Teancum (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Couple more comments: "Bruticus is playable only in a level where the players will feel 'the most powerful.'[5]" That line is a bit confusing. I think it needs a little more context to make sense.

Reworded. I'm still not totally happy with it, but it's much more clear. --Teancum (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the part about survival mode: "This is the only mode in which players can use famous transformers." That also needs more explanation, because it reads like OR right now. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded. Again, I'm still not totally happy with it, but it's much more clear. --Teancum (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]