| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because let's face it, I hate seeing one of my all time favourite games just languishing in B-Class (I want to get this to at least GA). Any suggestions for improvement are welcome.
Thanks, MiasmaEternalTALK 01:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment from I'm Aya Syameimaru: There are lesser people peer-reviewing articles compared to ten years ago. Back in 2010, there were many articles that successfully received peer reviews with lots of attention. However in 2019, Shirou Emiya had an empty peer review with no-one reviewing the article. It attracted no attention, so Tintor2 took it to GAN anyways and then it was promoted to GA-class status. In 2020, I had to peer review my FLC List of Puella Magi Madoka Magica episodes myself because no one else did it within weeks. See here: Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Puella Magi Madoka Magica episodes/archive2. «“I'm Aya Syameimaru!”I„文々。新聞“I„
userbako”» 09:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comment by Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, peer reviews seem more common for FAs or when we need a major rearrangement. Stuff that might be fixing is:
- Reference every paragraph in gameplay
- Wouldn't Bloody Fate be featured alongside the sequel?
- The awards could be separated from the press reception to avoid confusion. See Judgment (video game) or Devil May Cry 5.
- The press reception might be benefited by focusing on generalizations to reduce overdetails and have "the gameplay was praised due to its" rather than saying "X praised this". It seems to be a common new idea. See Judgment and DMC5 or (DMC4) that also use this arrangement.
- If you are worried about the prose you could also ask for a copyedit.
Hope this helps.