Wikipedia:Peer review/Gears of War 2/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gears of War 2

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I started working on pretty close to it's creation and I have watched it grow. It seems like GA material and maybe even FA material but I figure a PR would be appropriate before I nominated it for anything.

Thanks, N.G.G. 02:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Levi's comments

Prose/Style/Layout

Lead/Infobox
  • Are those inlines required in the lead and infobox? An uncluttered, easily accessible lead is generally preferable.
 Done
There are still quite a few. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed all inlines except for the one in the info box about release dates.--Next-Genn-Gamer (Sign) 15:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph needs to be understandable to readers who have never played Gears of War (or any video game, ideally). There is no explanation offered for Locust, Marcus Fenix, and COG, for instance.
 Done
Good work. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last sentence in the first paragraph should be reworded to give just the actual release date, not an announcement of it.
 Done
Good, but it was a simultaneous worldwide release, right? Not just NA. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox could include a "series" field.
 Done
  • "It is the second game of the Gears of War series (as the sequel to Gears of War)..." - A little redundant, especially considering this game's title is simply "Gears of War 2".
 Done
  • Probably don't need the "(Heavily modified)" in the infobox. If that's true, you can explain the modifications in Development (with references).
 Done
  • The box art caption only needs to say "North American cover art".
 Done
Gameplay
  • Dom should probably be referred to as Dominic throughout the article to maintain proper tone.
 Done
Still quite a few instances, especially in Plot. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed.User:Next-Genn-Gamer17:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found one more, changed it myself. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 05:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation density is inconsistent throughout this section. One sentence has three inlines, for instance, while large parts of the section seem to be completely unsourced.
 Done
Good, but there's only a handful of sources for the entire section. Reviews are a good resource for Gameplay sections. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last two sentences of the first paragraph cite the same source consecutively.
I don't know where you saw that because I couldn't find an incident like that in the section--Next-Genn-Gamer (Sign) 22:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, changed it myself. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 05:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph is short and contains two unrelated pieces of information. Also, Achievements should either be explained or wikilinked, because non-360 gamers do not know what they are. I think "Xbox Live achievements" is also misleading because they are not strictly earned on Live.
 Done
  • Like Synopsis, there are developer quotes here. Use them to flesh out Development instead.
 Done
Still some left, like in Campaign mode. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find that the rest are fine where they lie.-- Gears of War 2 (NGG) 05:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Campaign mode
  • Lots of quotation marks here, most of them are probably unnecessary.
 Done
"Face-to-face", "drop in/drop out", etc. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Multiplayer
  • There's an inline here in the middle of a sentence (not following a punctuation mark). Make sure all inlines throughout the article follow punctuation so as not to interrupt flow.
 Done
Still some left, like #10 in Reception. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This subsection could be condensed, some of the paragraphs are small.
 Done
  • Like the previous subsection, lots of unnecessary quotation marks here. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Synopsis
  • All the quotes and developer notes are great, but they should probably be included in the Development section instead. The Synopsis section is generally reserved for a more in-universe style.
 Done
There are still developer quotes and notes. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the Locust Horde? What's COG? Who are Marcus Fenix and Dominic Santiago? Readers unfamiliar with Gears of War won't know what these are.
 Done
I think it still needs more work before it's accessible to someone who hasn't played the first Gears. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Development
  • The first sentence mentions interviews given by Cliffy B. It doesn't need to say anything about interviews, it just needs to say what was said in the interviews.
 Done
I mean that the interview doesn't need to be mentioned; only its content does. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Going gold" is a game industry term that indicates a game is complete and ready for mass production. Casual readers may misinterpret this as the music industry "gold", which indicates a certain number of copies sold. It might be better to reword this sentence to avoid confusion.
 Done
Downloadable content and updates
  • This section could be condensed; it has two single-sentence paragraphs, for instance.
 Done
Limited Edition
  • This subsection is unnecessary. The information could be added to the end of the Development section. Also, the comparison table is a little catalogueish.
 Done
Reception
  • This section, especially the critical reviews, needs to be fleshed out significantly. Quite a bit should be written about gameplay and graphics, with smaller bits about audio, plot, and other topics.
 Done
I still think it could be bigger, but it's up to you. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Soundtrack
  • This section is not necessary, in my opinion. Its information (sans track list) should be moved to Development, but only if a reliable source for it can be found.
 Done
External links
  • Of the links present, only the official website is necessary.
 Done
  • There's a big gap between the link and the next item.

Sources

  • The last paragraph in Downloadable content and updates is unsourced.
 Done
  • Make sure all of the reviews in Reception have inlines (like in the infobox).
 Done
  • This game is big enough to have been reviewed by mainstream sources like municipal newspapers and non-gaming websites. Sourcing some of them will make future FACs a little easier.
I will worry about this once the article passes GAN.-- Gears of War 2 (NGG) 02:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of the references are missing info, like publisher, access date, author, etc. Each one needs to be as detailed as possible.
 Done
Good, but several of them give English as the primary language. That's true, but identifying them as such on the English Wikipedia may give a reader the impression that other references are not in English. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 11:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

 Done

Generally I would agree that this is a B-class article and only needs a little bit of work to go up for GAN. The prose could use a good copyedit though, especially Gameplay and Development (Synopsis is pretty good). Remember that the article needs to be accessible on a basic level to someone who has never heard of Gears of War, does not play video games, and is unfamiliar with the Xbox 360. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 08:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Gears_of_War_2/archive1&oldid=1146276431"