Wikipedia:Peer review/God of War: Ascension/archive1

God of War: Ascension

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 would like an in depth review on how to improve the overall quality of this article so that it can be taken to FAC and hopefully pass (it has been unsuccessfully nominated twice in the past). I'm looking for specific, detailed comments.

Thanks, --JDC808 ♫ 21:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ProtoDrake

@JDC808: This may take some time as I want to be very thorough, but I'll leave comments on as much of the article as I can manage. If I'm not back in a few days, remind me. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks, I'll start looking at your article in the next day or so. --JDC808 ♫ 17:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JDC808: Right, I've had a look through it. It's better than I expected from the first glance, but there are still issues here that should be addressed.

Lead

While this isn’t properly huge, I would still recommend trimming it down a bit. Perhaps use GoW III's lead as a template.

Whenever a new game in this series comes out, I always model their article off the previous ones, though sometimes that doesn't 100% work out. Anyways, I've managed to trim down the second paragraph some. I wasn't sure what I could trim down from the first and third paragraphs. Though in terms of number of lines, the first paragraph is the same length as III and the third paragraph is about a quarter of a line longer here. Changes.

Gameplay

Maybe linking Kratos in his first instance would be wise.

Done.

“The Amulet of Uroborus allows Kratos to manipulate time by decaying or healing an object. A broken bridge can be reconstructed. Construction can be paused, freezing items in place and allowing puzzle-solving, and construction can be reversed if needed.” - While it may break it up sensibly, the functions of the Amulet feel like they’re spread over two wide an area for comfort.

Can you elaborate a little bit on this?

It's the large usage of fullstops during the description of one item's usage. This is just a suggestion (and you have every right to ignore it), but I would have phrased it like this: "The Amulet of Uroborus allows Kratos to manipulate time by decaying or healing an object; examples include reconstructing broken pathways and using it during puzzle-solving. Construction can be paused or reversed if needed." A little rough, and as I said you don't have to do it. The other item descriptions seemed fine. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Synopsis

A general note is that the plot section is a bit of a slog for a story this... simple. Quite a bit of the fine detail could be safely shaved out, such as repetitions of information found in the “Setting” and “Characters” subsections (descriptions of Castor and Pollux, the narrative’s non-linear nature). Another element that could be altered is the incorporation of the Furies’ origins into the characters section, as it stands on its own within the plot without any real need. Also, since it has already been specified that the setting is based on Greek mythology, simply linking major mythical characters should be sufficient. I’ll include a couple of specific instances.

The mentions of Aegaeon seem extraneous somehow. Maybe you could skirt round the need to mention him? He’s basically a piece of window-dressing rather than an important character.

Okay, I've trimmed out Aegaeon with his only mention being in the opening paragraph of Plot.

The sentence “The protagonist of the game is Kratos (voiced by Terrence C. Carson), a Spartan warrior who broke his blood oath to the Olympian god Ares.” could be changed to “The game’s protagonist is Kratos (voiced by Terrence C. Carson), a Spatran warrior who breaks his blood oath to the god Ares after being tricked into killing his family.” This is the kind of thing that can be adjusted.

Done. In regards to your first point about this main section, are you saying to basically put a small description about the characters in the Characters subsection and take out their description from the Plot subsection?

That's what I was suggesting. If it doesn't work within this article, don't do it. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done some work, as can be seen here.

The entire description about Orkos’s origins and Kratos’ involvement with Ares could be considerably shortened.

~~Working.~~

Done some revisions to the Plot as a whole. See next comment of mine.

A general suggestion I might offer us trying to reduce the plot section to four concise paragraphs.

Working.
General question. Is the way that the Plot section is laid out in terms of its non-linear narration okay? When the Plot section was first done, it basically did present all the shifts in time, and after several edits, it eventually got to where it's at now to read easier. I wasn't sure if maybe the paragraph "Gameplay begins...." (which is present time) should be incorporated into the "Back in the present time...." paragraph so that it reads chronologically throughout the entire section. --JDC808 ♫ 22:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The non-linear structure within the plot section itself is fine. Didn't have a problem following it aside from its length and detail. If maintaining the non-linear structure means splitting the section up into more than four paragraphs, you can ignore that suggestion. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to get down to four paragraphs, but I have made it, or I believe I've made it more concise. I've got two revisions: the first, Revision A, is still six paragraphs, but more concise than previously (and is currently what's on the article); for Revision B, I was able to get it to five paragraphs, but had to change the non-linear approach to a more linear one. Which do you think is better? --JDC808 ♫ 22:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revision A. Excellent work. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's still way too much detail. The section is for broad arc. The only detail we need are elements that are necessary to understand the later sentences. All that stuff about "Aegaeon", for instance, do we need to know this name? Do we need to know this backstory? Do we care that Aegaeon became a symbol, or just that the Furies punish those who break blood oaths? Keep it simple. czar 01:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Development

The very first sentence in the first paragraph has way too many commas in there for comfort. A note here, I was expecting more like this, but I didn't find anything that stood out.

Reworked most commas.

Gamescom should be capitalized.

Stylistically it's not capitalized. Should it still be capitalized here? --JDC808 ♫ 23:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I didn't know it's to do with stylization. I guess it's alright in that instance.

Soundtrack

You should remove the redlinks. If/when an article is created for them, they can be linked then.

Done.

Reception

There is a consensus not to use GameRankings for games Seventh-gen onwards due to it generally using the same sources. Also, you should mention how many reviews went towards that score.

I saw that and wasn't in favor of that change, but if I remember correctly, the consensus did say that if the article already had the GameRankings score pre-consensus, it doesn't have to be removed. If you really think I should remove it, I can.

If there's a pre-existing consensus to keep it on this place, then it should be alright staying.

Added number of reviews.

References

All the PlayStation references, including the “Rise of the Warrior” refs, are dead.

I meant to recheck those but forgot to. Santa Monica completely redesigned their website for God of War which is where the Rise of the Warrior graphic novel could be read. I'll start filtering through those and try to find where Rise of the Warrior is on their new website. --JDC808 ♫ 23:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the stuff that stood out. I could go through it again if you wish. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ProtoDrake: Thanks and sure. The more that can be done the better. --JDC808 ♫ 23:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'll be addressing the further points today, as well as leaving comments on your article.~~ --JDC808 ♫ 18:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ProtoDrake: More points addressed. ~~Haven't fixed the dead links in the refs yet but will do soon.~~ --JDC808 ♫ 22:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ProtoDrake: All the dead links have been either removed or replaced. Unless you have any other comments, thanks for the review. --JDC808 ♫ 21:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]