Wikipedia:Peer review/Club Penguin/archive1

Club Penguin

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because, at this point in time, the article is progressing well, but could really do with some comments by neutral editors who have a tad more "distance" from the work than we do, and thus can better evaluate any strengths or weaknesses. I'm hoping that it is getting close to featured quality now, and any advice to help get it closer would be greatly appreciated. :)

Thanks, Bilby (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments from JamieS93

I know this might not be all that thorough, and I'm not experienced with peer reviews, but here's what I noticed when looking through the article:


 * It seems that there's some inconsistency with the dashes in the article – this should be fixed, per WP:DASH.
 * In the lead and in the "Game features, Items" sub-section, all plain-text dashes "-" need to become one of these: "–" (en dash).
 * Also in the Reception and criticism section is there any specific reason why the quote is double-dashed? There ought to be only one of those em-dashes, without spacing around it.
 * Per WP:LEAD, it would be best to expand your lead somewhat. I don't fully see it summarizing the main points of the article.
 * The article seems to be decently referenced in the first few sections, especially with the statistics and historic info. Working down the article, however, make sure that there's no unsourced original research when it comes to observations about the game – I was about to comment on the Puffles section until I read again that it's all as described they stated in their catalog, which should be okay. Still, the article shouldn't sound like it's coming from much of an in-universe perspective. The overall number of references seems kind of lacking, however, in comparison to its size.


 * Also, to me, the article doesn't flow nicely with the two tables in the middle of the article. Maybe rearrange things a bit?
 * The Memberships section – Info about Beta testers should be expanded (preferably), or merged into the general memberships section if needed. The sub-header should be at least a small paragraph, not just two lines.
 * Wikilinking seems to be kind of lacking, as I saw a couple of sections where most of the text is black, which makes things look a little more dull. Add some more well-placed wikilinks (being sure not to overlink to unrelated topics) and things should be looking more spruced up.
 * "Thus a major focus of the developers has been on child safety,[5] with a number of features introduced to the game to facilitate this - including offering a "Safe Chat" mode, whereby users select their comments from a menu; filtering that prevents swearing and the revelation of personal information;[5] and paid moderators (along with unpaid veteran players) who police the game.[6]" This sentence in the lead is awkward to read. "Release" of personal info might be a better term, too.

So that's what I noticed when taking a look at the article. The prose seems to be decent, I don't know about FA-quality, however, didn't take a close enough look at it (the article would probably need a good copyedit reviewing anyway, to reach that higher standard). This type of article does seem like it would be hard to bring together as a well-organized piece, not a messy random pot of information; you and your project seem to have done a nice job with that, though. I hope this helps!  Jamie ☆ S93  09:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks heaps for all of that! It is much appreciated, and helps a lot. :) I'll work on prose and the flow of the article, and I certainly agree that the lead could do with expanding. I can't find much about the beta testers, so I'll probably go with your merge suggestion. :) - Bilby (talk) 05:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Brief comment from Ruhrfisch I agree with Jamie93's comments above. Here are a few more suggestions for improvement: Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The two tables (Notable places within Club Penguin, and The Stage) are completely unsourced, and need refs too.
 * According to WP:HEAD the headers should not repeat the name of the article.
 * There are many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
 * The article uses bullet point lists a lot - if this goes to FAC, at least some should be converted to text.


 * I agree completely with the two tables. I'd left them there as they seemed useful, but maybe they shouldn't stay? Sourcing is going to be tricky, as the information is all in-game, so while it is a primary source it is a bit iffy. And I'm not sure you can source "List of play next to the stage" or something. :) Otherwise I'll work through your points. The comments are really cool: the difficulty is that I've read the article so many times that I can't see the flaws any more, so having someone else help point them out is immensely useful. Thanks again! - Bilby (talk) 05:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)