Wikipedia:Peer review/Risk (game)/archive2

Risk (game)
First Peer Review

The editors at WikiProject Strategy Games got this up to GA, and we're looking for suggestions of how to get this to FA. Thanks.--Clyde (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Trebor
It needs a lot more information on the History and Development, I think. At the moment, the majority of the article is just a description of the rules, a paraphrase of the manual. If you're aiming for featured, the trivia section should be merged elsewhere (it also needs a cite to show that it is "infamous"). "The goal of the game" in the lead is incorrect and shows systemic bias - as is explained later on, in some versions it isn't the primary goal. Trebor 17:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 23:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Plek's comments
Good luck. --Plek 00:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Trebor, Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. The middle part of the article must be curtailed significantly.
 * In its place, add information about notable topics, such as the game's designers, development, marketing, sales figures, international versions, to name a few.
 * ✅? (added sections to add in later)
 * The "Dice probabilities" must go, too, for the same reason.✅
 * Copyediting, and lots of it. Run-on monsters, such as "Although it takes advantage of area movement, Risk is relatively simple and abstract, compared to other war games, as it ignores realistic limitations, such as the vast size of the world and the logistics of long campaigns.", should be slain.
 * Add many more citations; aim for one reference source per paragraph.
 * I doubt the "Computer implementations and video games" section would pass muster. There are a lot of red links in there, and do you really expect people to write articles about ports of Risk to each and every computer platform? The entire section could be replaced by a single sentence (i.e. "Risk was released as a computer game on many platforms, the first being the Apple Macintosh in 1989 blah blah blah.") It's a crappy sentence, but you'll get the idea.✅
 * Finally, there are very good reasons trivia and popular culture lists are frowned upon (WP:V being the most important). Forking a pop culture section to another article (References to the board game Risk in popular culture) is not a solution; you're merely dumping one article's problems onto another. Please save your fellow Wikipedians a lot of trouble by incorporating into the main article what you must, and nuking the rest.
 * Modeling after Monopoly. It still might be good to delete though. What's the call?
 * Quick question. I've started adding new sections for other parts of the article, but we have no example. Somehow Monopoly (the only other FA board game) has nothing about those.--Clyde (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * One important thing to keep in mind is that Monopoly became an FA way back in 2004. The standards set for articles to be featured have risen considerably since then. It's a decent article, but I really doubt it would pass muster when applying today's FA criteria (and editors' opinions of them). Arguments like "but article XXX is an FA and it doesn't have YYY either" are raised occasionally on WP:FAR, but these get shot down remorselessly, for this very reason. So don't do it. :-)
 * As to your question about what to include: I'm afraid I can't suggest too much beyond what I already stated. Board games aren't exactly my area of expertise... I've taken a quick look through the articles in Category:Board wargames, but most of them really aren't too stellar, so you might not find too much inspiration there. Still, I think your edits have already improved the article markedly, so you might just end up setting the standard yourself. If not done so already, try to enlist some help at WikiProject Board and table games. Good luck! --Plek 19:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Another quick question while you're at it. Should we delete the pop culture section (and it's main article) completely? | A ndonic O Talk · Sign Here 19:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest asking yourself the question: "Is there a better, more interesting way to illustrate the popularity of XXX than showing an endless list of books/movies/TV shows in which XXX is mentioned?" If the answer is "yes", than write about it in brilliant prose. If "no", then delete the section altogether. Said endless lists are just magnets for trivial, dull, unverifiable and non-notable edits, that really add nothing of value to the subject (i.e. who cares if Risk was played by this-and-this character in that-and-that TV show?). --Plek 19:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. | A ndonic O Talk · Sign Here 13:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)