Wikipedia:Peer review/Agar.io/archive1

Agar.io
This peer review discussion has been closed. This article is short because it is on a simple game, but I would still like some feedback after rewriting it to weed out the poor-quality content, before nominating it for good article status.

Thanks, Esquivalience t 18:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at this soon. I recommend getting a screenshot of the gameplay to illustrate how it looks. GamerPro64  16:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think doing so would exceed WP:NFCC if it is copyrighted, as it is simple enough to click on the external link to the game. I have doubts over if the design is even original enough, though. Esquivalience t 21:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So looking at the sources, they seem to be reliable. Kotaku, Engadget, Destructoid check out. Though, unless its in a different language other than English, you don't have to add in the pipe what language it is. Especially since Engadget is in English and not Turkish. Also the subreddit in the External Links should be removed. GamerPro64  21:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Esquivalience t 23:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from RO

 * Lead
 * In the game, the player controls
 * I'd drop "In the game" and just say "player's control ..."


 * Among game critics, Agar.io received positive critical reception.
 * How about, "Game critics gave Agar.io a positive reception"?
 * I used "Agar.io was released to a positive critical reception" instead.


 * Agar.io was quickly successful upon release
 * How about, "Immediately successful"?
 * Although it was pretty much popular overnight; quickly seems fine.


 * over ten million times in its first week
 * It's better to say, "more than ten million times during its first week".


 * Gameplay
 * I'd resolve that OR tag asap.
 * Cited the official changelog.


 * Cells can be split with the split cell launched at the direction of the cursor.
 * This needs a rewrite.
 * Rewritten as "Players can split a part of their cell, flinging one of the split cells at the direction of the cursor".


 * Development
 * Agar.io was first announced on 4chan on April 28, 2015 by Matheus Valadares
 * You linked 4chan in the lead, so link it once again on the first occurrence after the lead.


 * According to an interview conducted by Kafakutu,[15] Valadares said that he was a player of the game Spore
 * Avoid "according to" when you can; how about, "Valadares told Kafakutu magazine that he was a player of the game Spore"?
 * Rewritten simply as "Valadares said to Kafakutu that he was a player of the game Spore, which he cites as an inspiration for Agar.io".


 * unclear inspiration
 * What's an "unclear inspiration"?
 * I meant a inspiration.


 * The second paragraph of this section needs to be sourced. As of now it has no citations.
 * Added a ref.


 * In an interview with Sergio Varanda, head of mobile at Miniclip, the main goal of the mobile version was to
 * This is a little rough. How about, "Sergio Varanda, head of mobile at Miniclip, explained that the main goal of the mobile version was to"?


 * Reception
 * Agar.io has generally received positive reception
 * How about, "Agar.io has received a generally positive reception"? Although words like "generally" are too vague to be all that helpful, so it would be even better to avoid it altogether.
 * I used "Agar.io was released to a positive critical reception"


 * Reception
 * repetitive and frustrating
 * Might be nice to flesh this out a little more for the casual reader who might not have ever played this game, or games like it.
 * I think another mention in the lead is enough.


 * The mobile versions also received the same positive reception, but was criticized for unwieldiness
 * Because "versions" is plural, "was" ought to be "were".
 * Reworded the whole section to be more active.


 * Politics
 * used in Turkey for political reasons
 * I'm not sure this is the best way to phrase this, but I'm drawing a blank. I'll think about it and get back to you if I think of something better.

Nice piece overall. Its pretty well-written and easy to follow. There are places that could use more detail, if good sources are available. Other than that I wish we had an image or two, but maybe no free ones are available. Keep up the great work! RO (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Conclusion
 * Thanks for the feedback, comments and changes are above. Esquivalience t 03:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)