Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games | Peer review

ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

edit

This article, a subsection first split off of the The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion article, and later the Development history of The Elder Scrolls series article, recently passed GA. I believe I've covered most of the comments brought up in the review, and am wondering what I could do to push this article closer to FAC. Any comments would be welcomed and appreciated! Geuiwogbil 07:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sdornan

edit
  • Don't link parts of article titles. It just looks bad and it goes against the Wikipedia:Lead section#Bold title anyway. Link the parts of the title in the first occurrence of the word in the article text.
  • Use italics, not quotes, for naming something specific, such as Oblivion Topless Mod.
  • Rewrite sentences so they don't appear redundant, such as in the first section (The "third party tool" in question was a game modification, the "Oblivion Topless Mod").
  • For dates, don't link months of the year by themselves. Also, add 2007 at the end of dates which make the reader assume you are referring to this year. It won't be so obvious for someone reading in a couple of years from now.
  • Too many quotes in the article in general, in my opinion. Most of the article reads like a newspaper, which is not what we're going for.(The events passed by with little outward concern from the either the public at large or gaming journalists in particular.[2] "Barely a cursory glance or raised eyebrow marked its passage," wrote Zenke. "There were bigger stories to cover that month." The news came just a week before E3 2006, the "last real E3 event"[2] before the show downshifted from a "mega-show" to a "highly targeted event". reads like a newspaper article for example.) Paraphrase a few of the more general quotes with the reference tag at the end. That's what it's for after all.

-- Sdornan 21:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, Sdornan!
  • Did that.
    • Ah, OK, I'll de-bolden the title then. I'd like to link to rating, ESRB, and Oblivion as quickly as possible, since this article's really just a sub-feature of them.
  • Did that.
  • Is that the only one?
  • Did that. Whoops. I guess you've proven that I need to put years there: all of the dates are from 2006.
  • Did the sentences in question. I'll work on that, but I'd like to keep a hard kernel of quotations down at the bottom of all this. It's the best non-OR method of representing the feelings and aims of the protagonists in this issue. Citing the exact wording of the ESRB press-release, for example, seems the best way not to misrepresent their aims, intentions, or rationale. Geuiwogbil 21:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better already. :) Sdornan 22:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Your edits have been great too. It's the slightest changes make it seem far less 'newsy' and far more 'encyclopedic'. Style is such an odd thing... Geuiwogbil 01:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do my de-quotifying measures look? Good? Bad? Ugly? Geuiwogbil 02:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great so far. Just remember to use neutral words unless you're quoting someone, chastise for example might be a little harsh, don't want it to sound like the article is taking a side. Also, If the ESRB was so concerned with a single mod now, what would it do in response to "Game 3.0" concepts, where community involvement is key? should be attributed to someone or reworded. Such as so-and-so asks, "[quote]?" since a rhetorical question isn't very encyclopedic. :P Sdornan 02:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Geuiwogbil 02:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did that. Geuiwogbil 03:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the reference you added that says The process of re-rating the games would end up costing Bethesda and Take-Two millions of dollars. isn't quite accurate. That part of the article was specifically referring to San Andreas getting an AO rating, a rating which equals doom for a publisher since Wal-Mart and many other retailers won't even sell Adults Only-rated games. Doesn't quite apply to Oblivion. Sdornan 02:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. I just read the "pulling games and re-stickering them is an expensive process." and the "cost its publisher millions of dollars." and conflated them. Sorry! Geuiwogbil 03:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did that. Geuiwogbil 03:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sdornan, I feel like there should be a "The" before Oblivion Topless Mod in the subheading title. Am I wrong to feel that? Geuiwogbil 04:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(headings)#Wording Sdornan 05:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I knew it! Anything else to recommend, Sdornan? Have the de-quotationifying measures been adequate? Geuiwogbil 13:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. Sdornan 16:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Peer_review/ESRB_re-rating_of_The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion&oldid=145253791"