| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to get it to GA status. I'm worried that the Development section is too short as there is no information I could find that could add to it.
Thanks, ~ P*h3i (talk to me) 05:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
@P*h3i: Hi there! I've never been on this side of it before, but I figured I'd go through this and do a review and throw in my two cents. Just a note here, I think this is in fine shape already for GA (I haven't brought an article through the FA process before so I can't speak for that), but games like Iridion 3D and Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door are both at FA and GA respectively with similarly sized development sections.
- There should be citations about how "picross is traditionally played" in there. I would actually expand on what picross is in general so it's more obvious what the changes are to the formula from the video game. I've never played picross before so I'm not sure-- what's the goal? How do you solve the puzzle? Is it to create a picture or is it to match a corresponding number in rows or columns?
Done: Wording slightly changed and another reference has been supplied. There's already a full paragraph and now two references for it (Nintendo Power, Engadget), so any more explanation and I think it'd go either too off topic or be too expansive for a Gameplay section.
- There are no sources for the "Time Trial" mode paragraph. What does 'unlocked' mean? It's good to avoid typical video game jargon in writing (or at least write it in a way that explains it for later use).
- Done.
- There's no citation for the fact that they made the majority of other Picross games in the development section.
- Done: The IGN reference is the best I could find; the reference says it's "Jupiter's first crack at a picross game".
- I see the link to the advertisement, but was it ever aired? Try and find another source that talks about it instead of using a primary one.
- ✗ Not done: I couldn't find any reference saying this, so I just went second-best and linked to the actual ad.
- All of the first two sentences about localization differences should be cited, those are pretty big claims that should be backed up by a number of sources.
- Done: Ref to actual game as it's the best I could get.
- Score numbers should be taken out of reception and put into the reception box.
- Done.
- The legacy section should be combined in a better way-- those random sentences look kind of bad.
- Done.
Hope this is a good starter, let me know if you have any followup questions. Nomader (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Just adding here that if you have any specific areas that you're worried about or would like me to dive deeper on, let me know and I'll be happy to help out. Nomader (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hey! Thanks for reviewing my article. I'm really busy at the moment, but I'll attend to what you've suggested here sooner or later. Thanks! ~ P*h3i (📨) 06:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Nomader: I've answered all of your suggestions the best I could. Thanks for the review! ~ P*h3i (📨) 03:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- So unless you have any more suggestions, I'll close the review in a day or so. ~ P*h3i (📨) 03:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- I think that should be fine! Just a note that ref 3 is also broken, so make sure to go ahead and fix it. I may take a look at it in the next few days one more time, but you can go ahead and close. I'll leave any comments if I do on the talk page and just ping you on it. Nomader (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)