| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
Stealth video game for IOS and android. I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to get it to good article status someday. It's obviously nowhere near that at the moment, so I'd appreciate some feedback as to how I can improve it.
Thanks, Omni Flames let's talk about it 07:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'd start with (1) WP:Paraphrasing the reviews in the Reception section, and using as much of the review content for the Gameplay section as possible. You can also (2) remove the unreliable video game sources. You can find a list of vetted sources here.
czar 15:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Czar: Thanks for the suggestions. I've tried to expand both the reception and gameplay sections. I've also removed the Droid Gamer source, and I've asked about the reliability of the others here. What do you think of it now? Omni Flames let's talk about it 02:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'd unlink PixelBite and remove as many of the primary source (PixelBite) references as possible. We prefer secondary sources. By the way, your pings won't send unless you sign your posts with four tildes. czar 02:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Czar: Whoops, forgot to sign there. Thanks for that. I'll unlink PixelBite. The main reason I've used so many primary sources is because I found it difficult to look for secondary sources which documented the information in the "reception" section, whereas their official website has a large number of posts that talk about the game's development. Omni Flames let's talk about it 02:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's acceptable to fall back on primary sources, especially for reception, when there is nothing better, but Gameplay should be sourced to secondary sources as much as possible, and the majority of the refs should be secondary sources (to show that the game is important enough that we can write an article about it without reverting to original research and primary sources). czar 02:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Czar: Oh, whoops sorry. What I meant was development, not reception. Anyway, the development section is pretty much the only section which relies on primary sources. The synopsis section uses 1, but I could easily fix that. And the intro also uses them. Omni Flames let's talk about it 02:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's acceptable to fall back on primary sources, especially for reception, when there is nothing better, but Gameplay should be sourced to secondary sources as much as possible, and the majority of the refs should be secondary sources (to show that the game is important enough that we can write an article about it without reverting to original research and primary sources). czar 02:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Czar: Whoops, forgot to sign there. Thanks for that. I'll unlink PixelBite. The main reason I've used so many primary sources is because I found it difficult to look for secondary sources which documented the information in the "reception" section, whereas their official website has a large number of posts that talk about the game's development. Omni Flames let's talk about it 02:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'd unlink PixelBite and remove as many of the primary source (PixelBite) references as possible. We prefer secondary sources. By the way, your pings won't send unless you sign your posts with four tildes. czar 02:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)