Wikipedia:Peer review/Dust II/archive1

Dust II
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see what I can improve prior to nominating this article for FA.

Thanks, Zoom  ( talk page ) 16:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)  Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk )  07:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, this article sure has improved since the last time I looked at it! Here is a non-exhaustive list of comments:
 * Don't think the article needs this part of the quote: "In it's most basic form". Easier to just start out with the figure eight comparison.
 * The second paragraph is quite convoluted. I've played Dust 2 countless times and I got lost reading the summary.
 * "being" doesn't need to be in italics.
 * I made some changes to the prose. Hope these are fine. Felt it was unnecessary to mention them here and to just fix them myself.
 * I'm either not reading this part correctly or it's contradictory: "It was added to the map because of space limitations; there had been plans to make the area larger". If there are space limitations, why is it being made larger? What is being made larger?
 * Explain the Active Duty map pool. The article goes on to then call the pool the "competitive pool".
 * Is the quote from kio necessary? It's written in broken English and doesn't add anything as it's not juxtaposed to anyone.


 * Thanks for the feedback!


 * I'll start with what I've changed.
 * I have removed "In it's most basic form".
 * I removed the italics in being.
 * Elaborated on the Active Duty Competitive Pool, explained in this edit. Also revised for consistency.
 * Tweaked explanation with the Long A development more comprehensive now.
 * Now my input on your comments:
 * I do think that the second paragraph of Design is hard to read, I'll probably have to start over and I'll get back to it.
 * I think the quote from kio is necessary, explaining why the removing of Dust II was logical. This follows ptr's comment with frustration of the removal of Dust II.
 * Thanks, again! Zoom  ( talk page ) 18:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * When I rewrite the 2nd paragraph of Design, should I keep the details (such as explaining where places like cat, pit, lower tunnels, mid doors, etc. in relation to the other main choke points) or only mention the main choke points and spawns in order to make the summary more comprehensive? Also, should I use the minimap as a point of reference for explaining these locations on the map or no? Thanks! Zoom  ( talk page ) 16:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What do the sources say? Do they go in depth into each choke point or do they only mention the important ones? I don't think cat, lower tuns, mid doors, etc are too relevant unless you're using them very briefly to explain the layout of A/B. ALso, try to not make reference to images from the prose.  Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk )  23:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you think that this will work as a replacement for the second paragraph? I cut down on some of the unnecessary locations and expanded on some of the main choke points themselves. Zoom  ( talk page ) 17:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I prefer the existing one over the new one. The one in your sandbox is even more convoluted. Having read the existing one again, it's perhaps best we leave it as is until other people chime in.  Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk )  04:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)