Wikipedia:Peer review/Saganami Island Tactical Simulator/archive1
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I quite honestly am not sure where else to go with it. A discussion of tactics in the game wouldn't really be appropriate, and the gameplay, to me, seems to be fairly well described already. Granted, I'm looking at this from the level of someone who's actually played the game, so I know how it works, so I'd like to get my hands on the perspective of someone who's never played the game so as to give me ideas.
Thanks, Kant Lavar (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I know nothing of this game, which perhaps makes me an ideal reviewer. I would rate it start class (not stub) and will assume you want to work to WP:GA. here are some suggestions:
- A model article is often useful to follow and I note there are 7 WP:FA at Category:FA-Class strategy game articles - take your pick.
- My three biggest concerns on reading this are 1) jargon, 2) provding context for the reader, and 3) citations
- Jargon examples from the lead and first section: A thrust scale of 1 is 190 Gs - so I think this is a spaceship game? or Orientation on the map is shown with box miniatures and tilt blocks, with altitude shown by stacking tiles. - tilt blocks are explained two sections later, which is not much help here.
- Jargon and providing context are often linked - I read Honorverse in the very first sentence and did not click the blue link. From scanning the article initially I assumed it was some sort of self-consistent gaming universe. Then books are mentioned, so it is based on them. When I got to the bottom of the article and saw the Honor Harrington navbox it finally dawned on me what it meant (I have heard of HH, just haven't read the books).
- The article has one inline reference currently. Every quote or statistic or statement likely to be challenged should be cited and there should be at least one ref per paragraph.
- While there is some effort to do this already, make extra sure to write from an "out of universe persepctive" - see WP:IN-U
- In General Overview expalin the background situation of th game too - who are the Manticoran Navy, who are their enemies, where do they fight?
- Try to avoid repeating things - for example "Each Jayne's guide covers one space navy as seen in the Honorverse books, as well as its attendant marine corps. Released so far have been books covering the Royal Manticoran Navy (including the Royal Manticoran Marine Corps) and the People's Navy (and the People's Marine Corps)." repeats the marine corps
- In general for works of fiction some sort of Reception section is included - how well did it sell, what did critics think of it, what sequels did it produce or influences did it have on other works?
Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
Bear in mind I'm a HH fan, and I own the game (although haven't actually played it much, no one in the area to play with, and no time). However, if I saw this article at FAC, I would oppose because of a total lack of citations. The one reference there is , is to a message board post. Yes, it's by the creator of the game, but it probably wouldn't get past folks. I agree with Ruhrfisch that the article needs some sort of reception section. I suggest some time spent finding sources for the article. The Lead section discusses stuff not discussed in the article itself, some of which might be good in a background and/or history section. Also it is pretty thick with jargon: "A thrust scale of 1 is 190 Gs, and ships (as of the release of Second Edition) range in thrust from a scale of 1 to 4; however, the play aids can handle ships with thrusts of up to 7." and other things like that. If you don't play the game, none of that makes any sense and it should be introduced or explained in terms a non-player will understand. (April 11, 2008)