Wikipedia:Peer review/Planescape: Torment/archive1

Planescape: Torment

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

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was recently the focus of a collaboration between WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons and WikiProject Video games that resulted in a successful GA nomination. We'd like comments on the article to move it in the general direction of FAC. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory glance at the article reveals:

A severe lack of citations in the Gameplay and Plot sections. Most of Gameplay is uncited, which could easily be remedied with reviews and the game's manual. If none of the editors have the manual, it is downloadable at the always-useful Replacementdocs. As for the Plot section, reviews and developer commentary could and should be used. The Story subsection will need a ton of references. If all else fails, it is (as far as I know) still acceptable to use quotes from the game's script.

Mobygames used as a source. Mobygames, while one of the most useful game-related sites on the Internet, is edited by users. If the old rules still apply, this means that it cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia.

A lack of Legacy section. This is only relevant if there's enough information floating around to cobble one together. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jimmy! I'll take a look at the issues you mentioned. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The instruction manual for Planescape: Torment is very small, especially compared to great manuals like the Baldur's Gate one. I used it as a reference for a couple of gameplay points, but there's not much else in there. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Mobygames and replaced the credits reference with Allgame, which is more reliable. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezkag72:

This is a good article (I don't mean the term, I mean it's good); there are just a few fairly minor things that stand between this and a featured article.

First paragraph of lead says it was released in 1999. List the whole release date (December 12, 1999) there. Also, delink the date where it lists it in the infobox; and in the first paragraph, link "1999" to 1999 in video gaming.

Abbreviations for terms are not necessary (i.e. "(RPG)" in the third paragraph of the lead, and "(NPCs)" in the second paragraph of the gameplay section.)
Needs more sources in the gameplay and plot sections. The game's reviews will have information about the gameplay and plot; they may be praising or criticizing certain aspects of the game. Also, if you own the game, you can find quotes to use as references. This shouldn't be hard to do but it's the kind of thing many people notice first in FACs.

A second screenshot would be helpful. Maybe also enlarge the image there is.
A legacy section that JimmyBlackwing suggested would be helpful, but probably not necessary unless there really is enough of a legacy. If not, the Awards section should be plenty.
If possible, change the dates in the references from the YYYY-MM-DD format to actually written out. Not a big thing at all but it makes articles look better.

These are a few things I thought of while reading this well-written article. Try to fix these issues, as well as what everyone else has said, and you should be good to go. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"RPG" is necessary as that term is used later in the article. I removed NPC though. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I standardized the date formatting. –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I also see more sources in the gameplay and plot sections. Tezkag72 (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- sources that are in languages other than English need to note that in the footnote

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed all of these questionable sources except RPGWatch and ActionTrip. The article is more reliant on those two. Could they be supported in FAC, or will we have to make do without them? — Levi van Tine (t – c) 10:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vantine84, what makes GameBanshee an unreliable source? It looks to be a professional website, and is a member of UGO Entertainment. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to remove the ActionTrip reference pretty easily; I'll look into RPGWatch and see what I can do. –Drilnoth (T • C) 19:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The RPGWatch interview seems to me like it would be reliable, since it's the game's designers talking (a primary source, but not an unreliable one), or does the website it's on make the difference regardless of who wrote it? Thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C) 19:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drilnoth, what makes ActionTrip unreliable? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the Master of References said so. :) Okay, in truth it looks a tad unreliable and self-published looking at the Wikipedia article. I'll put in a request about both it and RPGWatch at WP:RSN. –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth merely asked about the reliability of those sources, she did not comment on their acceptability. The RPGWatch sources are only used to make reference to an interview with Chris Avellone and Colin McComb. The interview provides useful insights into the game's design, which can't be reasonably replaced by anything else. It's inconsequential who hosts said interview. What is important here is that the interview is referenced; even if we don't link to the URL, we can still cite the interview itself. But removing the URL is an inconvenience that detracts from the article's quality for the sake of bureaucracy. (Anyone who does things "for the sake of bureaucracy" ought to have their house burned to the ground.) Because this is a primary source, we should only use the interview for things Avellone and McComb said, not for the personal thoughts of the interviewer. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the interviews, they can probably stay. I only removed the questionable references because I felt the article could stand without them. And PS, Twas Now, we're all trying to help here, so please don't throw house-burning in our faces. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Drilnoth asked me to do an image review[1], so here it goes:
- File:Planescape-torment-box.jpg - Box art seems good for an infobox.
- File:Planescape start-room.jpg - The use of the image seems justified from the caption, but you might want to expand on the actual fair use rationale.
- File:PTNameless.jpg - Another reviewer might have an issue with it, as it doesn't add all that much to the article, but it is fine with me. Perhaps you could expand in the caption a bit more.

Regards, NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 19:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll look into adding better captions and FURs to the ones you mentioned. –Drilnoth (T • C) 19:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]