Wikipedia:Peer review/Hogwarts Legacy/archive1

Hogwarts Legacy


I've listed this article for peer review because of its planned featured article candidacy (FAN). This is my first peer review submission and any comments to improve the article are appreciated.

Thanks, Vestigium Leonis (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments from The Night Watch
Should have some comments up sometime this week. The Night Watch    (talk)   19:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Still got this on my to-do list, but it is getting a little busy for me right now, so it may take until Thanksgiving weekend to get some detailed comments in. So sorry for the wait. I'll try to get them in when I can.  The Night Watch     (talk)   23:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Here are the notes that I've got so far:
 * The sourcing is from reliable sources as far as I can see, and is likely good enough to hold up during a source review. There are some minor inconsistencies with the citations (some publications with Wikipedia articles are blue linked, while a few others like Destructoid and one of the OpenCritic citations are not) but overall the sourcing is in good shape and will pass unless the spot-checks find anything. ✅
 * Troy Leavitt is mentioned as the lead designer twice, I think you only need to mention his role in development once. ✅
 * The section about Rowling’s viewpoints and the boycott appears appropriately neutral. Though some FA reviewers may have different opinions, balancing this section would not have been an easy feat, and I’m impressed you were able to do so.
 * I think the section about arachnophobia is more suited to release, as it is not very relevant to how the game is played, and moreso something added after release. ✅
 * The biggest hurdle that I can see is getting the prose up to scratch. That'll be hard considering this is a big 123K byte article, but it is in good shape already and can get to "engaging quality" with some work. I'll try to make some copyedits to help some sections, though I’m not the strongest copyeditor and some FA reviewers might be able to give some better advice. Some essays that helped me a bit with copyediting are WP:REDEX, User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises, and WP:ELEVAR
 * There are some scare quotes in critical response that could be paraphrased to make the section flow better (Happened to me the first time, took a little bit of time to fix) ✅ (Reduced)
 * I'd try avoiding the passive voice if possible.
 * The Night Watch    (talk)   00:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries about delays, I am glad someone is providing input. I will look into the things you stated so far. I assumed the recent GOCE visit was sufficient, but maybe the FAC process will bring up more to improve the prose. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Vestigium Leonis I've taken another look and I can't really detect any major problems beyond the ones that I listed above. It may be a result of me having looked over this article several times in the GA review beforehand, but I think more meaningful feedback may come from another user involved in WP:VG who hasn't reviewed this article yet. As such, I would either seek out other users on their talk pages for feedback, or go on ahead to FAC and see what happens. Fair warning there are already two video games over at FAC, so feedback may or may not be timely. Though I will postpone the current FAC that I had planned so that you can submit this one for review should you wish.  The Night Watch     (talk)   03:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments from David Fuchs
doing Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 14:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (Just a note that I'm still doing this, hoping to have it done this weekend.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 20:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi David, apologies for barging in to the conversation uninvited, but have you been able to work on this further? Matarisvan (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's still in progress. I'm in the middle of a move so it's probably not going to get posted until the end of next week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 13:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am still around as well. Let me know once you are finished with everything, and I will take a look at it! Vestigium Leonis (talk) 14:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for such a delay. Anyhow, some opening thoughts on the article at present, reviewing it with the stringency I'd apply as if it were at FAC:
 * Prose :
 * In general the prose needs work, particularly with reducing wordiness and streamlining things. I find Tony1's copyediting exercises useful practice, but just focus on places where you could use a simpler construction to be clearer. (I'm not a "simplest is always better" diehard, but it's good advice to follow with encyclopedic writing. E.g. players were able to receive free cosmetic items can get shortened to just players received free cosmetic items.)✅ (Your example, will take a look on further improvements meanwhile)
 * Likewise there's some issues with shifting tense throughout, presumably because parts were written before the game released or is now outdated, e.g. Since the early access release on 7 February 2023 up until 24 February 2023, players have been able to receive five free cosmetic items exclusively through Twitch Drops ✅ (Your examples, will take a look on further improvements meanwhile)
 * As of February 2023, shortly after release, game director Alan Tew stated that the team focused only on the launch and did not yet plan to release additional content feels like this should be updated given that they are doing something for the anniversary (though admittedly the PS-exclusive quest going cross-platform is the only thing officially announced.) ✅
 * Media :
 * File:Hogwarts Legacy gameplay screenshot.jpg needs a more detailed and thorough FUR. Especially since you can argue the free Hogwarts Legacy trailer obviates a lot of the NFCC arguments you can make for a non-free framegrab.
 * I am not very experienced with media management here, so would it be more simple to use one of the trailer screenshots that are currently saved in Wikimedia Commons? I would not mind to use the Great Hall or Sorting hat one and adjust the description. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not very experienced with media management here, so would it be more simple to use one of the trailer screenshots that are currently saved in Wikimedia Commons? I would not mind to use the Great Hall or Sorting hat one and adjust the description. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I think there's still value in a release-version gameplay screenshot, especially since the stuff in the trailer is pre-release and doesn't necessarily represent the moment-to-moment gameplay in a way accurate to the gameplay experience. But my point is that when you do have something like the trailer that is free, you need to do a better job justifying using non-free content. So the gameplay image needs to hook into critical commentary or something that's beyond just "this is the gameplay" or "this image looks nice". What aspect beyond the setting (which you can probably use the trailer for) is a focus of reviews and can it be illustrated? Does that make it a little clearer? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 13:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC) ✅ (I would still like your final input on it, as we will close this, you can use my talk page!)
 * I am not sure. I would replace the screenshot description like this:
 * "In this gameplay screenshot, the player character uses the Cruciatus Curse on an enemy." (Old)
 * "During battles, the player character mostly relies on using spells and spell combinations. The Crutiatus Curse is used against enemies to deal damage over time and can be combined with other spells or curses."
 * Is this what you had in mind? The "focus of reviews" part confuses me though, as the gameplay section is not connected to the critical reception? Vestigium Leonis (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

-- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * References :
 * FAC demands not just reliable sources, but highest-quality possible. In that vein,
 * References are a bit inconsistently formatted. If you're not going to put ISSNs with all the references that would have them, leave it off Some websites are formatted differently (www.bafta.org, gamer.nl) Some notable publications (Pitchfork) are not wikilinked whereas they mostly are, etc.✅
 * I will be doing a source spot-check at some point.


 * Hey @David Fuchs, thanks for the input. Is there more you want to add? I would rather wait for your final remarks before I start on working on the article again. I should have some free time available again soon. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I will take another look next week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 15:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Query from Z1720
It has been a month since the last comment. Is this ready to be closed and nominated to WP:FAC? Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I will work on the prose comments regarding updates on the weekend. If no one else returns to the page, we might close it on Sunday, yes. I would need support on the overall prose aspects though, in case there is similar feedback on FAC. Should I still just give it a go as it is or let someone from GOCE do a second copyedit beforehand? I am a bit undecided here. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If the article hasn't gone through an extensive rewrite since the last GOCE request, then I think it should be fine as is. As for support, you can consider finding a featured article mentor or co-nominator who can help with that aspect of the article when it goes to FAC. Z1720 (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)