Wikipedia:Peer review/RuneScape/archive6

RuneScape[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
About this time last year, the article was submitted for peer review and then nominated as a good article, which failed dismally. Since then, myself and User:Unionhawk have tried to improve the article for a future Good Article nomination. Since Unionhawk is now semi-retired and I have no major experience in article-building, I need another external review.

(A request to have the article copy-edited was submitted in September 2009. I'm not sure if that came to anything, though.)

Thanks, 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just kinda busy, is all. I just got bored with Wikipedia for a while, so, I kinda took a break. I don't know... I'm pretty much back now. But I think a peer review would probably be helpful nonetheless.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 23:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the semi-automated peer review (SAPR) because it should not be included here for the following reasons: 1) when the SAPR is included here, this peer review request does not show up at WP:PR for others to see it and make comments; 2) this saves space at WP:PR; and 3) this follows the directions above, i.e. "Please do not ... paste in semi-automated peer reviews below: link to them instead." It is accessible at any time via the toolbox as "automated tips". Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, didn't see that. My bad.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 19:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replies by 1ForTheMoney Despite my dislike for semi-automated review, I shall respond to some the unstruck points.

Subpages have never taken off in the past because they never managed to demonstrate notability outside of RuneScape. However, as the number of secondary sources increases, as well as the article's already large size, we may have to review that option.
I saw no problems with footnote numbers and punctuation. That point has been struck.
Terms of size are often used because there's no way to know the exact number of something. I'm not saying they're a good thing, but they may have valid uses
There is one {{fact}} in the article, but that's proving difficult to source, since Jagex would rather deny recognition, and reliable sources never seem to pick up on it). If we simply remove the unsourced point, it won't really be player reception any more. At worst, that section may have to be recombined with the "Reception" section.
The point about copyediting is valid, but one I have already noted - see the opening statement. I hope to expose the more obvious flaws in this peer review. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right, summary style is out, and the {{fact}} and copyediting issues have been established already. I'm going to go ahead and collapse that.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 17:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I see the bot archived this without much input, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

I think this needs better references - there is one citation needed tag, and more importantly I think the article needs more independent third-party sources used as refs - as it currently stands, most of the refs come directly from Jagex or its publications.
The article has five WP:FAIR USE images - does this meet WP:NFCC?
I would print the article out and read through it out loud slowly - the article contradicts itself in places, for example History and development ends with RUnescape's launch in India, then the Servers section and map clearly indicate it is available in India, then in the Other languages section there is the quote And where's India in all this? I think RuneScape is a game that would be adopted in the English-speaking Indian world and the local-speaking Indian world. We're looking at all those markets individually".[40] SInce we have already been told in the preceding two sections that is already in India, this quote from 2008 at least needs to be put into context (2008 quote)
The article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that break up the flow reading it. To make it less choppy, these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
The MOS says that abbreviations should be spelled out on first use, so "Non-player character (NPC)" and other examples - this is also a bit of a WP:JARGON issue
The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but the Reception sections do not seem to be in the lead, for example
Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself - but at least FunOrb is only in the lead

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to comments by 1ForTheMoney I'm aware this has been archived, but it seems prudent to respond to comments. Note that the Guild of Copy-Editors recently worked on this article, and I intend to link back to this at Talk:RuneScape for more visibility.

The reference issue is valid. In some places, there are references pointing to different sections of the same page - apart from bloating the number of references, it makes the issue bigger than it should be. Would it be sensible to combined such references into one?
Fair-use images are also an issue and one that must be addressed. I've gone through them all but can't find a really good argument to get rid of any of them. This merits further discussion.
I included the date of Iddison's interview for added context.
Choppy sentences were a stumbling block at the GA nomination last year. The article was recently copyedited, but I haven't looked that over yet.
I shall have to look at abbreviations again. Some, such as MUD, may need expanding even though they are linked - a user shouldn't have to go clicking around.
Reception probably merits inclusion in the lead, but as reviews lose their significance over time we should pick the more recent secondary sources (they need not come from the Reception section.)
We should look into the idea of creating an "In other media" section. My only concern is that it might be a bit short. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick comment - I undid the archiving - the bot will archive it again after it gets to 30 days old and has had no edits in 2 days. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was ticked off by the lack of uninvolved comment. Noted as such on Talk:RuneScape. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, I was a little disappointed when the bot archived it too... Sometimes, human judgment beats automation... But, on the bright side, we got an experienced copyeditor to do a full copyedit.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 12:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs

The lead really should have some critical reception mentioned (which is the main thing lacking in the article.) Also, the gameplay seems a tad too detailed. I'll try and post expanded comments later. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]