Wikipedia:Peer review/PlayStation/archive1

PlayStation
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'm getting ready to nominate the article as a Featured Article candidate. The article has recently undergone major expansion and was recently promoted to Good Article status.

Thanks, KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-auto peer review: T3h  1337   b0y  04:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

General


 * In general, a very good effort at a top level summary article, which is difficult to do since its main job is to summarize and redirect for more information. It needs some work before it would be ready for FAC. Hopefully the comments which follow will help.
 * A good copyeditor could help the article, and you should enlist one if you plan to move forward with an FAC. The quality of the prose would likely be the main obstacle it would face there. The article is generally very well written, with minor glitches, but is not up to the level of polish that would be expected at a FAC. Examples include an idiosyncratic use of commas (or omission of same), and other issues like:
 * The breaking of the deal by Nintendo, was the result of the increasing financial problems
 * However due to a strong opposition from a majority present (should be However, due to a strong opposition…)
 * There are other similar and slightly odd constructions too numerous to list here, but that a good copyedit would quickly resolve. Try the volunteers at WP:PRV
 * While the article appears comprehensive to me, I am not an expert. Comparison to the FA Playstation 3 would be a good benchmark. I note that you have listed this at WP:VGPR as well. Hopefully the expert editors there can provide a more educated opinion.
 * Infamous, PSX and [Quore]] lead to disambiguations pages. You should edit them to point directly to the page you want.
 * There are several dead links. Use the tool here to check them.

Lead
 * The Lead could use a good rewrite. The lead should summarize the entire article, closely matching the relative weight of the topics the article discusses. I notice several omission here, like Controllers, Software, and Reception. A good rule of thumb is that each header should be mentioned in the lead in some way.
 * The infobox seems very lean compared to the FA Playstation 3. Could this one be similarly expanded?
 * the first "computer entertainment platform"… why is this quoted? Is it something someone said? If so, it should be sourced.
 * “The PlayStation Network is a unified online service…” I do not know what that means. Can you explain (or delete) “unified”?
 * “…a premium online service known as PlayStation Plus…” Does premium mean it costs money? Can you explain?
 * Likewise, a brief description of motion gaming would help here.
 * Citations always go after the punctuation. Note six is backwards here. Check for this throughout.

History
 * I suspect that the image PlayStation_Prototype_Logos.png‎ would be challenged at FAC. I am not an image expert, but I can tell you that the fair-use rationale for logos such as this is frequently questioned and often disallowed. If you plan to take this to FAC, I would get an opinion from WP:MCQ or one of the editors who does a lot of image reviews at FAC, like user:elcobbola or user:Fasach Nua.
 * “…and would later be dubbed as "The Father of the PlayStation". By whom?
 * “..who in response appointed Kutaragi with the responsibility of the continued development PlayStation project to rival Nintendo with his full support” This sentence does not read right. What is it trying to say?
 * with Nintendo offering Sony a "non-gaming role". Again, who said so?
 * “was finally greenlit by Sony executives…” Is greenlit too jargon? Greenlit in my knowledge is not too jargon Yousou (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Consoles
 * For the main article hatnotes, combine them at the top of the section, like this instead of interspersing them throughout the section
 * The images are very small. Don’t force the px size of the images. Let the reader’s preferences determine the image size.
 * the PlayStation, which took "9 years and 6 months since launch". You have to cite the quote. In general, you need to cite the quote right after the quoted passage, even if you repeat the citation for the rest of the sentence (as I suspect you meant to do here).
 * In the table the link to non-unified service is not intuitive. The link actually goes to Playstation 2 Online play (which does not seem to exist).
 * Check for WP:OVERLINKing throughout. Sony, Sony  Computer Entertainment, UMD, and flash memory are just a few examples of things that are linked more than once. It needs to be checked carefully.

Future
 * “UK video game magazine, Develop,” Magazine titles should be in italics.

Other hardware
 * “The PocketStation was a miniature game console” Should not be bold. Later in the section, it should not be in italics, either.

Online services
 * The images PSN logo color trans.png and Home logo.png might have problems too. See above. =
 * Life with PlayStation and other game/application titles like Infamous and LittleBigPlanet should be in italics.
 * “Life with PlayStation is a Folding@home” Do not bold.

Media
 * You should list the magazine in prose and not as bullets. See WP:EL.
 * The image Kevin Butler.jpg almost certainly fails as fair use. And the press kit license requires sourcing to an actual press kit. This one is sourced to Facebook. This is very likely a copyright violation and should be deleted entirely.
 * I have to question why the list of slogans is part of this article. It feels like trivia to me. If it must be included, it should have a separate list article that is linked from here.
 * The same for the Notable advertising campaigns. They feel egregious here.

Reception
 * The expansion tag should be addressed and removed. Surely in the sixteen year history of the platform we can find more critical commentary. Importantly, it should reflect the bad along with the good.

References
 * I am not an expert on video game sources, but can tell you that these kinds of sources are frequently challenged at FAC. For a flavor of that, what makes Edge Magazine, IGN.com, Engadget, Eurogamer, Gamespot, etc., reliable sources?
 * To determine the reliability of a site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information.
 * Things like blogs (note 98 and 104, for example) are specifically NOT reliable sources in most cases.
 * The article relies very heavily on Sony sources and “enthusiast” websites. It would be improved through more extensive use of mainstream media sites. Surely there are books on the topic we can source to? What does Google books turn up, as a start?

External links
 * I would delete the links the Facebook and Twitter. See WP:EL

I hope these few comments prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that Kevin Butler.jpg is used in the article Kevin Butler (character). It may be fair use there. It is almost certainly not fair use here. In either case, the press kit license is suspect. An expert opinion would be valuable. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)