Talk:Peggle/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: gakon5 (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Your GA review is forthcoming.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Prose issues below.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I've yet to go through the sources, but the article appears to have no OR.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lead:

• Is the Peggle iPhone App Java-based, or is Java its own platform?
• Special powers associated with a number of cartoon "Peggle Masters" can be activated to benefit the player to aid in this task. Something about this doesn't read right.
• Peggle initially sold slowly but was boosted by The sales of Peggle were boosted, not Peggle itself. Perhaps change the subject of the sentence.
• What's a "themed demonstration"?

• I'm thinking something along the lines of "demo", "trial", or "sample". Peggle Extreme is but a mere sample of the full game, and I don't think "demonstration" fits in a gaming context. --gakon5 (talk)

• I suppose I never considered the fact that "demo" is indeed short for "demonstration". At the same time, I feel like "demonstration" in a gaming context means something you just watch and don't play. --gakon5 (talk)

Gameplay:

• In the second paragraph, the player's objective is explained (clearing all the orange pegs just by shooting balls into the field?) before the most basic gameplay element is described (hitting a peg with a ball destroys it).
• I'm not sure it's made clear how exactly Peggle Masters work. The sentence introducing special powers reads: When the player hits a green peg, they activate the current "magic power" of the character for that level. Who is this character? Outside of the Lead, the term "Peggle Master" has not yet been introduced.
• I suppose you could say there's a lot going on on a Peggle board. So, I wonder two things about this entire section:

• Does it go into too much detail with regard to gameplay mechanics? Some of the minutae of scoring (style points do not get the multiplier bonus) can't be that important to the reader's understanding.
• The first paragraph is dedicated to outlining all the different objects on the board. Would it be better to instead explain these things throughout the entire section rather than all at once?

• That's a great improvement over what it was. --gakon5 (talk)

Development:

• In some cases, they had found the sound appropriately early on What does this mean?

Versions and sequels:

• I don't belive "Master Challenges" as a concept have yet been introduced, unless they're analagous to the Master levels from the original game's Story mode.
• Peggle Extreme was developed in conjunction with the Valve Corporation after programmer Tams Programmer for PopCap?

Reception:

• This was a pretty well-received game, but is there any more negativity you can add? There isn't much, other than one bit about a mode in the XBLA version.

Sources:

• The gameplay section seems like it needs more inline citations. Everything else looks fine, and the sources are all reliable.

I plan on copyediting the article sometime later. Lots of little prose issues to work out. Really, I think the article's biggest problem lies in the Gameplay section, which may need to be reworked in structure to read less confusing. --gakon5 (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I won't be able to do any copyediting until tomorrow. But I like the changes being made. --gakon5 (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You've gotten the improvements I've made. I've speckled references for gameplay, and I think you got the one aspect that I found in another review about the lack of online play in the PC version which appears to be the most negative thing about the game. Copyediting is very much appreciated. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to read over it one more time, and then probably pass it. --gakon5 (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

And, passed. Great game, and an interesting read. --gakon5 (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)