Wikipedia:Peer review/Magic: The Gathering/archive1

Magic: The Gathering

 * 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 April 2009.
 * 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 April 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I like to see the article promoted to GA once again. Actually I can see it becoming an A-class article in the nearer future because the content is rather complete as I see it. If you review this article suggestions about what you think is missing towards GA would be very welcome. As English is not my mother language a general notice of "copyediting required" would not be too useful, though (to me at least).

Thanks, OdinFK (talk) 10:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting and generally well-done article, here are some suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Article needs more references, for example the whole Gambling or Deck construction sections have no refs, and there are none for 6 of the 7 paragraphs in the Tournament structure section. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * Mnay of the internet refs do not identify the publisher, which seems to be "Wizards of the Coast" quite frequently. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * Wherever possible use independent third-party sources as refs - see WP:RS
 * The article has five fair use images, but one of them contains six separate images of cards, so it really has 11 copyrighted images. This seems to me to be too much - see WP:NFCC
 * Be consistent in how things are presented - so are there quotes around the word planeswalker(s) or not? As of the Lorwyn expansion, a new card type, "planeswalker", has been introduced to the game. These cards represent planeswalkers—similar to the player—with their own magic abilities, one of which can be used each turn.[14]
 * The article has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs, which should be combined with others or perhapos expanded to improve flow.
 * Provide context for the reader - the History section does not mention a year until the end of the first paragraph. There is no mention there of the various expansions (new sets of cards) so As of the Lorwyn expansion, a new card type... above comes out of left field. See WP:PCR
 * One of the things to watch out for is writing from an in-universe perspective
 * Ask someone who is a native speaker to see if they can copyedit the article, just one example: The best decks can identify its own weakness and find ways to account for it. First off, the decks do not play or identify (the people / players do). Second, "decks" is plural and "its" is singular.
 * A model article is often useful for ideas and examples to floow - not sure what would be a good model here, but History of the board game Monopoly is an older FA and might work.