Wikipedia:Peer review/Lock's Quest/archive1

Lock's Quest

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

Hi there, I would love to get this to Featured Article status, but I'm not sure whether it is at a standard to be taken to FAC review. Any comments are very appreciated. Thank you!

Thanks, GraziePrego (talk) 08:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dxneo

Hello GraziePrego, this is my first time looking at game article(s) so bare with me. In the meantime would please look at this PR and give me your opinion. dxneo (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, I would say the article well-written and formatted. Well done! dxneo (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead could be expanded a little bit. Those two short paragraphs are not really enough to highlight the important keys of the subject such as, release, mode, remaster, gameplay and so on. dxneo (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on to references: At FAC, consistency is key. Therefore, it is a must to link each and every reference's website and publisher were necessary and possible.
- On ref2, I see you've linked IGN, it should also be linked on ref7, ref8 and so on. dxneo (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Link Destructoid, GameSpy, IGN, Engadget, GamesRadar, Pocket Gamer, THQ Nordic and The Jimquisition (which is now a redirect). dxneo (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you remove ".com" on refs 22, 23 and 24. dxneo (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain the reliability of ref30 (Steam). dxneo (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

Make sure to use WP:ALT text for all images. It is not a requirement for FACs, but it is a good habit to have anyway.
I would avoid instances of WP:SEAOFBLUE, such as a real-time strategy tower defense video game, whenever possible. I doubt that "video game" would require a link as that is a concept that is at least somewhat familiar to most readers. I'm also curious if there is a way to introduce this game with only one genre in the first sentence. That way, readers, particularly those not as a familiar with video games, would not be hit with two instances of jargon at the start. Why not introduce it real-time strategy video game and then discuss the tower defense elements later on? The article itself seems to prioritize the real-time strategy part as the main genre anyway.
The year that the game was released should be in the first sentence. It is currently buried in the second paragraph.
I would combine the first two sentences, Lock's Quest is a real-time strategy tower defense video game developed by 5th Cell and published by THQ. It is 5th Cell's second Nintendo DS game., to say Lock's Quest is a 2008 real-time strategy tower defense video game developed by 5th Cell and published by THQ for the Nintendo DS. to condense this a bit. I have also added the year as I have suggested in my above comment.
Make sure that items are linked both in the lead and in the article for consistency. I would link isometric in the lead for this very reason. That and it is a concept readers may not know or understand.
Avoid sentence constructions like the following: with critics particularly praising the plot, gameplay and graphics. This is something that is often discouraged in FACs per WP:PLUSING. Make sure to edit out any and all instances of this in the lead and the article
The lead does not really include any information about the game's production, and the "Development" section is rather sparse. Just to double-check, but have you done a thorough search of all the sources pertaining to this game? I completely understand if this is just all of the information available, but I have run into instances where I found further sources with some more digging.
For this part, was released for PC, PlayStation 4 and Xbox One, rather than just saying "PC", I would clarify that it is for Microsoft Windows and Linux and use the appropriate links to be as clear as possible.
I would include in the lead that the remaster was developed and published by different companies than the original.
Would it be beneficial to collapse some of the infobox's parameters? I am asking as in my browser window, the gameplay screenshot is being pushed down by the infobox. I would think that the release and platform(s) parts in particularly could be safely collapsed without losing anything.
It may be helpful to separate Build and Battle phases into their own paragraph to avoid having a wall of text that could potentially overwhelm readers, particularly those may already be unfamiliar with video gaming.
Make sure to link video game jargon, such as "2D" and "side-scrolling" in this sentence: This minigame is a 2D side-scrolling tower defense game.
This could just be me, but I am uncertain about the certain structure of "Gameplay" section. The first paragraph is all about the perspective and the more technical stuff with how the Nintendo DS is set up, but I think it would be clearer to get into the actual gameplay first. I would still start with the genres, but I am just unsure about whether it is best to get into the more technical aspects of the different DS screens before informing readers about the actual gameplay, particularly as this kind of game is more specific. Again, this could just be me, but it is something that I kept coming back to while reading this section in particular.
Why is Source italicized in the "Plot" section, but not in the previous section?
I would revise this part, The game itself begins some years after the events above. to something like The game itself begins some years after these events. as I think that using "above" in this context does not really sound right for an article.
Some of the citations are not in numeric order. It is not required by any means for a FAC, but I was just curious if there was a reason behind this?
It is unclear why the following sentence is included in the "Development" section: IGN awarded Lock's Quest its "Best Strategy Game" award for the Nintendo DS at E3 2008 in July. I can see the award was given prior to the game's release, but some further context would be helpful.
Nintendo Power is not sourced the "Reception" box.
The focus of the "Reception" section's first paragraph is unclear to me. Unlike the other paragraph, it jumps around between different topics without a clear direction. It is also unclear why two awards are mentioned in the first paragraph and other awards are sectioned off by themselves for a second paragraph. I would highly recommend reading WP:RECEPTION as these sections are notoriously hard to do well and for FACs.
For both of these sentences, GamesRadar+ described the graphics as "charming", and Pocket Gamer described them as "bright and well designed". and Destructoid described the music of Lock's Quest as "incredible", GameZone described it as "beautiful and epic...some of the best original music in a DS game", and Nintendo World Report described it as "very nice"., the word "described" is repeated multiple times in the same sentence, which makes the prose repetitive and less engaging.
I would avoid "disagreed" in the following context, Eurogamer disagreed, describing the controls as "well explained and intuitive". It reads like Eurogamer is disagreeing with the previous sentence in a more direct response, which I doubt that is the case.
Was there any further information on the remaster and the release for mobile devices? Why were the reviews for the remaster "mostly negative"? Did the mobile versions get any reviews? The "Re-release" section is quite short and may benefit from combining with the "Development" section so all elements of the game's release could be grouped together. I would also rename the section to something like "Development and release".
Make sure to italicize video game titles in the citation titles per MOS:CONFORMTITLE. I would also make sure to either stick with title case or not as the citations are inconsistent with that.
It is unclear how items are linked and formatted in the citations. For instance, Destructoid is not linked in the first citation. Based on what I am seeing, it seems like a lot of the works/publishers are not linked. One of the citations has IGN while another one uses IGN.com. The date formatting for the citations are also inconsistent (when only one style of date formatting should be used). I would highly encourage that you look through these citations as a whole very careful as this would be an issue for a potential FAC.

I hope that these comments are helpful, and best of luck with this peer review and the future FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 01:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GraziePrego: In case they missed the above. Z1720 (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did, thank you very much! Thank you very much for the peer review comments to all who commented. GraziePrego (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]