Wikipedia:Peer review/Spark the Electric Jester/archive1

Spark the Electric Jester

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 would like to bring it to the Good Article nominations soon. I've rewritten practically the entire article and have tried my best to elevate its quality to that of a GA, but I don't have much experience with Wikipedia so I am unsure how close it is to reaching that. I'd appreciate any input from more experienced editors for what can be changed to help it qualify.

Thanks, LBWP (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LBWP Alright! I am going to do a quick read of the article to see its current state. Consider this a bit of a trial-run for GA. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the article, I found a few issues :

The image appears to have no appropriate reason justifying its fair use. Copyright is taken especially seriously on Wikipedia, and the image must meet the WP:NFCC criteria with adequate explanations. I suggest looking at other images that have explanations, such as a screenshot from the FA God of War III and use that as a basis.
Many sections appear to have MOS:WTW. I suggest reading the entire article and taking out these words.
Refer to the player in the gameplay section. Say something like “The player’s base transversal abilities include a jump, wall jump, etc.” This section should be written from the player’s perspective first, with Spark acting as the player’s extension.
Some of the article could be written better. I suggest reviewing the prose and making sure it complies with grammar consistencies.
The review section seems somewhat biased. Universal praise is not a given when only four reviews are included. I suggest cutting down the review section somewhat when only four reviews are included. Doing so would assure that the viewpoint of a few reviewers is not overly represented. See WP:DUE
The development and gameplay sections seem fine for a GAN. I suggest creating a different section in gameplay for Fark, and making sure that the Active voice is used properly per MOS:VG

Overall, Spark is doing quite well so far. Just skim through MOS:VG again just to double check that the article is meeting the style for Criteria 1 of WP:GA?. Reach out to me if you have any questions. Cheers! CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CollectiveSolidarity Thank you for your feedback. I've tried to address most of your points. I'm unsure about designating a section for Fark, as comparable articles, like Sonic Unleashed, don't do this. Nevertheless feel free to change it however you like. I've omitted most contentious words, though I left in "note" and "occasional" since I think they're used appropriately. I'm feeling relatively confident about nominating it but I'll wait for some more feedback from anyone else willing to jump in. LBWP (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LBWP On second glance, I think you’re right. I’ll take another skim of the article to correct minor issues, and then I suggest waiting for someone else to comment. Just remember that GA noms usually take about a month for a reviewer response, so keep that in mind. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and close this. May be doing so preemptively but it's been inactive for over a week and I'm fairly confident it's ready for a nomination. I'm grateful for the feedback and assistance provided. LBWP (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]