Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Lost Planet: Extreme Condition

Lost Planet: Extreme Condition
After taking hours to rewrite and edit this article, it's finally a B class article and now I ready to apply it to the GA standards through a peer review.--( NGG ) 22:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Prose/Layout/Style


 * Lead


 * The infobox is huge. I'd recommend collapsing the release dates section and losing the PC system requirements section (or collapsing it, if you feel it absolutely must be in the article.

✅
 * The requirements have been eaten but how do I collapse release dates?--( NGG ) 23:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done it for you using collapsible list. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 02:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are conflicting perspectives on this, but I don't feel as though Steam should be listed here as a distributor.

✅


 * K2 LLC should be wikilinked, even if it's red.

✅
 * Gameplay


 * This section isn't particularly accessible to a non-gaming reader. The first few sentences in particular should hold the reader's hand and introduce basic concepts like the game's genre and camera perspective.

✅


 * Development


 * That box quote and the image are too close together. Consider moving the quote to the left side, or removing it.

✅


 * Downloadable content


 * These two paragraphs should be condensed.
 * Don't really see how or why they should be condensed so I'm just gonna say ✅--( NGG ) 04:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Versions and sequel


 * This section should be rearranged a little bit; look at BioShock for tips—it's a featured article about a game with multiple releases, film deal, etc. Specifically, I would say rename the section "After release" and have one subsection about the collector's edition and Colonies and one subsection about the sequel.  The sequel subsection should be expanded and the film and downloadable content subsections should be moved from Development.

✅


 * The "but no major news yet" clause here could change at any time; consider removing it and including only information that can be verified by a reliable source.

✅


 * Reception


 * The image here is interfering with the section's layout. Consider moving it to Gameplay; it will fit there if the lead infobox is trimmed down.

✅


 * There's two huge paragraphs; could they be broken up a little bit? There were more than two when I wrote the section, unless I'm mistaken.

✅
 * Nobody has touched it since you wrote it for me. I divide it when I get a chance.--( NGG ) 23:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * External Links


 * The Open Directory link isn't necessary.

✅

Otherwise it's shaping up pretty well. —   Levi van Tine  ( t  –  c )   22:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just looking at the lead, I noticed a few problems. The datespam that is the second half of paragraph one needs to be removed; list only the most important release dates in the lead, and leave the rest to the infobox. Also, the lead is meant to be a summary of the article, with standard practice being to include at least a mentioning of each section's content. However, aside from telling us the game's genre, gameplay is completely neglected. You don't state who the player character is, or what the player does once s/he has control of said character. The lead description of plot could also be reduced. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)