| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm attempting to get it to GA class. Was wondering what areas seem lacking, confusing, or need better wording. If anyone could give me some advice, that would be great.
Thanks, Lucia Black (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Comments from LT910001
- This article is well-cited and has no issues with images.
- Prose is quite well-written but I think this article may need some expansion and re-writing to get to GA status. I'd encourage you to have a look at the other GA-nominated game articles (Wikipedia:Good_articles/Video_games#Video_games).
- I'd point in particular to the "Gameplay" section, which does a good job of explaining what gameplay elements are present, but unlike other video game-based articles doesn't provide an explanation of why these elements were included or how they fit into the overall context of video games.
- I feel some integrated quotes from developers or reviewers would improve this article
- Some references to normal video game design (eg tanks, healers, etc.) may help provide some context to the jargon-heavy text, which may not be very discernible to non game-players, and I'm not quite sure how this relates to the encyclopedic nature of the game other than as a list of features. For example: "A new rock-paper-scissors element was added. Soldiers can attack ground troops, but can’t hit flying ones and are not effective against pudding enemies. The Archers can attack Ahriman enemies and Black Mages can hit pudding enemies. Players can restore health with White Mages, boost attack with Bishop, and Paladins that shield a line from advancing enemies."
- This is just a list of my personal thoughts relating to GA review, and I hope they are helpful. This article certainly can make it to GA, but I'd encourage you as a first step to have a look at some other GA-nominated game articles and work from there. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Responce Thank you for everything. Yes i have intended to add development and interviews, but for such a simple game, its quite difficult to find. I don't think there's any interviews for it that i know of. The game is rather simple, but i will do some expansion to it with some clarifying the gameplay and removing the jargon.Lucia Black (talk) 09:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Mr. V's thoughts
- Expand Reception. Two or three moderate-sized paragraphs would be great.
- I think you should ditch that huge release table in the middle. All of the release dates and platforms can be located in the infobox.
- No need to have much info for the sequel on this article. Put in a main article tag for it and perhaps keep any development info for the sequel. If it's a redlink, that's ok.
- Do we need so much Japanese in the lead?
- I know the game doesn't have much of a plot, but can we include some more info about the setting? And that it's based on FF.
- No mention is made in the article about tower defense.
It's in a bit rough form right now, but it has potential. Reviewers are a great source for pretty much all sections. IGN especially has a lot of info for games. — Mr. V (t – c) 11:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- @Vantine84: I will attempt to expand the reception to at least 3 paragraphs, thank you. Unfortunately, know, not all release dates can be found in the infobox. it may seem that way, but not all chapters (W1, W2, W3) were released at the same time. example: the original Crystal Guardians released separately. Unless you want me to move those chapters up into the infbox aswell, i personally would find it too much. There's is no other main article to put the sequel in. And i suppose we don't need the japanese for the sequel, but both Crystal Defenders/Guardians should stay.
- Anything here, that you disagree with?Lucia Black (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- @Lucia Black:It may make the infobox huge, but even that would be better than that huge unwieldy table right in the middle of the article. The infobox can be auto-collapsed anyways. It's my opinion that a few sentences about a sequel are fine, but it's not in this article's scope to contain any more than that (even if there is no article for it), as the sequel is a different game. — Mr. V (t – c) 07:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- @Vantine84: Maybe you're just unfamiliar with these type of articles. For example Final Fantasy IV: The After Years and Final Fantasy Dimensions both have tables. I'm not going to remove them, because compared to those articles, it's not as "unwieldy" as you make it out. The idea is to show initial release, the table helps show when later chapters were released. I'm not going to budge on that.
- @Lucia Black:It may make the infobox huge, but even that would be better than that huge unwieldy table right in the middle of the article. The infobox can be auto-collapsed anyways. It's my opinion that a few sentences about a sequel are fine, but it's not in this article's scope to contain any more than that (even if there is no article for it), as the sequel is a different game. — Mr. V (t – c) 07:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- And if there was enough information for its own article, i would move it somewhere else, and have a brief summary. But unfortunately there is no other place to put it. But i have seen other articles that do the exact same thing when a sequel isn't notable. So i can't really help you here. This all seems like personal preference.Lucia Black (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)