Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Eragon (video game)

Eragon (video game)
I've been doing a fair amount of work to this article along with a few other editors and would like to see what our work has resulted in. I don't have the game myself so am at a disadvantage from the start. I really want to bring this article up to at least B-class, as the relatively new Inheritance WikiProject doesn't have many highly-rated articles. I used the StarCraft article as a basic guideline on what this article should have. I would really appreciate some sort of specific direction to try and take the article in, and I figured that this place would be the best to do this.

Thanks! UnaLaguna 21:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Krator
Overall a nice article too read, but two major things are lacking: information (length) and references. If you got these, I'll upgrade it to B. Also, I'd appreciate if you or any other editor who makes edits based on this review would note it here - see the nice 'done' template below. Those things make me continue reviewing articles. --User:Krator (t c) 17:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Introduction is too short. See WP:LS.✅
 * Explain how the third person combat works before going into details about attacks. (for example: "..., where the player needs to defeat several enemies at the time using mostly close combat weapons" - doesn't necessarily apply to this game, but something like it.) Gameplay doesn't have many references.
 * What is Saphira? It is only explained after using the word in Gameplay.✅
 * The last two paragraphs of Gameplay are too short - expand upon them.
 * Plot summary is a bit light. Try 3 paragraphs of this size. I find the information lacking here, and this together with the lack of references. Note that I say 'a bit light', because I like short summaries and many game articles have a tendency to make plot summaries large.✅
 * Development is ok.
 * First two paragraphs of Releases don't have refs.
 * PC Gamer UK review isn't referenced. If it's a print magazine, cite that - print references are good.✅

Clyde Miller
Good job so far, and I think it is in range of GA. Krator knows what he's talking about, and he's covered most of the stuff. However, --Clyde (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In the lead there are three references for one sentence that isn't very controversal. You might want to add onto this section or get rid of one of the refs. They're not all needed.✅
 * Plot has a spoiler warning, but no end spoiler. Might want to add one or get rid of the tag all together✅
 * In development, there is an external link in the article. That's usually not allowed.✅
 * In development, there are a lot of small underdeveloped paragraphs. It kinda hurts the prose with that much chopiness.
 * The cover art doesn't have a fair use rationale. If you need some ideas on what that would look like, look in some FA CVG articles.✅
 * There really isn't any screenshots in article (I saw a tag in the talk page about that). You could probably find one online, just make sure it isn't watermarked, and make sure to add a rationale.✅
 * Finally, you might want to covert the refs using Template:Cite web.✅