Wikipedia:Peer review/The Conduit/archive1

The Conduit
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that after years of editing, the page has finally reached FA standards. Unlike most video game related articles seen on the site which focus mostly in in universe aspects, The Conduit article gives a detailed account on the creation of the game, such as the technicals behind the creation of the games engine and audio creation, as well as games marketing and release. As a side bonus, it would be fun if the article was featured in time for the sequels release.

Thanks, Little Jimmy (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

As someone who knows zip about this game and has never really looked at a video game article in any depth, I will make a great naive reviewer but a useless expert. What the hey. You've done a great job here. My limited comments are a testament to that fact. I expect that once my concerns have been addressed, this'd sail through GAC; I'm not so sure about FAC. I hope my comments have been a help! Seegoon (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments from Seegoon
 * Per WP:LEADCITE, the only things you really need to cite in the lead are assertions which are super contentious or direct quotes. Hopefully anything mentioned in the lead is repeated later in the article, so you should really be able to remove all the references.
 * "In addition, as the player explores the game more subtle clues in the environment, such as a precisely placed object in a certain historical location, can be discovered which are meant to provoke questions about elements of the story." – a big, long, snakey, ugly sentence.
 * I've seen that some video game articles cite the game itself as reference material for the plot section. Yours is entirely unreferenced. I'm not entirely sure what guidelines dictate here, but it's certainly worth taking a look at some recent VG FAs and GAs to check it out.
 * "In early June 2009, the developer announced that The Conduit had gone gold" – although 'gold' is linked here, this is the sort of thing a lay reader wouldn't understand. Could you clarify this, do you think?
 * "supplied motion captured animation for The Conduit" – not sure 'animation' needs linking here.
 * "...recordings from the Wilco album Yankee Hotel Foxtrot taken from the..." – album titles should be italicised.
 * "Dolby Pro Logic II surround sound.[41]." – you have a stray full stop after the citation here.
 * "file through amazon.com. [51][52]" – stray space between full stop and citation.
 * "The Conduit has received mixed to positive reviews." – so many reception sections start with something like this. It's cookie cutter and unimaginative; surely an article as well-written as this one deserves something with a little more flair?
 * "a metascore of 69% at Metacritic based on 79 reviews." – citation needed.
 * Reference-wise, you're in very good shape. Reviewers will be quick to pick up on the paucity of print media and the two glaring deadlinks, as well as a little bit of inconsistency (i.e. ref #76 vs #66).
 * Now that I've reached the end, I can see that there's a little structural deficiency. Much of the release information from the lead isn't replicated in the body, as it realistically should be. The lead is supposed to summarise the important information from the body into a couple of paragraphs, but it feels more like an excerpt from a 'Release' section. I'd say that you need a brief rundown of commercial and critical reception within the lead, and to move some of the detailed release info elsewhere.

Thanks for the feedback, I'll try to incorporate you're advice into the article when I get the time. Plus GA would probably be a better start than FA. Cheers!Little Jimmy (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)