Wikipedia:Peer review/Overload (video game)/archive1

Overload (video game)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I would like some peer review in this article, since I have currently only worked on this primarily alone, expanding the article majorly ever since the game's public release. I would like input on readability, the layout and whether the sources currently given are sufficient. Feel free to suggest any other improvements as well.

Thank you in advance. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 15:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Surjection - I saw this article as being flagged as in need of reassessment on WP:VG. Here's a few main issues:

Remove the references from the lede. The lede is a summary of the rest of the article. The information SHOULD be somewhere else in the article, and that is where it should be sourced.

Done. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 14:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lede should also mention all of the important information. It should mention the release date(s), as well as what platforms they are on, and who it was developed and published by.

I'll add some information to the lede. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 14:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilink Spiritual successor

Done. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 14:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The development, section needs some context. It simply seems to mention that people worked on the same game as the Dissent series, but it needs more information about this game. It also doesn't really mention anything about how development happened, simply that they raised some money on Kickstarter.

I'll work on this section to add some context. My biggest issue so far has been the lack of secondary sources concerning the development. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 14:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added content into the Development section about the early phases. Coverage on later phases is still lacking, and I have added a Template:expand section in there, in case someone else will fill it in before I have the time to do it (which seems unlikely, so I'll probably end up being the one to expand it). SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 15:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expand the reception section! This is the biggest issue. See This section for details on writing a good reception section. First, mention what Metacritic says, (You can quote metacritic), and then any good third party reviews. 4players is fine, as is GameStar and RPS. The rest shouldn't be mentioned in the review box as they aren't notable or reliable sources.

I will check the section you linked. I've also removed the mention of the Steam user reviews. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 14:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved the Reception section now. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 15:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, you'll need to remove the Steam User reviews, as it fails WP:USERGEN. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]