Wikipedia:Peer review/Elden Ring/archive1

Elden Ring

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to bring it up to Featured Article candidacy. Most of the sources have been taken from the reliable sources engine at WP:VG, so I think the article primarily needs help with the prose. Additionally, some suggestions on where to find development information would be appreciated, because I have found some sources in the search engine, but not nearly enough to give an in-depth take on the topic.

Thanks, CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CollectiveSolidarity! Although I've never heard of this game, I'm glad to read about it. The article looks great to me. I went through the Gameplay section, doing very minor edits such as for clarity and grammar. I hope these edits are helpful. Some additional comments on the Gameplay section:

Gameplay image. The image of gameplay has fine detail so I increased its size per MOS:IMGSIZE. However, it is slightly blurry and increasing the size naturally worsened this, so I'm wondering if there is a higher quality image you could obtain?
George R. R. Martin image. I moved it to the right side of the page per MOS:PORTRAIT which prefers the portrait to face inwards toward the text.
Paragraph 2. "The player can memorize a limited amount of spells". Should this be "The player's character can memorize a limited amount of spells."?
Paragraph 3. "increase their statistics" I'm not sure what this means. Possibly MOS:INUNIVERSE or I could just be dense!
Paragraph 4. "The game contains crafting mechanics, which require materials in order to create items." This is vague to someone like me who doesn't know this world. You do explain it later in the paragraph, but it might help to name the examples right away?

If you're finding this type of feedback helpful, I would be happy to do similar passes through the other sections. I am new to doing peer reviews, so I won't be offended if you're looking for a different kind of feedback, a more experienced reviewer, or someone is more expert on the topic. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 07:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GuineaPigC77 Thank you! Sorry for the late response, I've been a bit busy lately. I have changed statistics to attributes, and provided an explanatory wikilink to Attribute (role-playing games). I'll also rephrase the crafting mechanics a bit. Once again, thank you! ‡ Night Watch ω (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing@The Night Watch! Best wishes for FAC! GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 02:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query by Z1720

@CollectiveSolidarity: It has been a month since the last comment. Are you still interested in receiving comments? If so, I suggest asking for reviewers on Wikiprojects attached to this article. If not, can this be closed? Z1720 (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]