Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Wars Battlefront: Renegade Squadron/archive1

Star Wars Battlefront: Renegade Squadron

• 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 February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
 

I completely rewrote this entire article after a period of research and development. It has never looked like a true encyclopedia article, which I hope I have remedied. I have added several pictures, including an in-game screenshot. All images have fair use rationale and the appropriate license tags.

Please take a look at the article and let me know your opinion. I'm a new Wikipedian and this is my first major edit, so please be candid so I can develop good editing habits. I followed a rough template of video game featured articles to format the page, so it should read smoothly.

Thanks! Vantine84 (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Laser brain's comments

• I think the fair use rationale for RenegadeBundle.jpg is pretty shaky, since the image is not the subject of critical commentary in the article. You do describe the packaging, but not much else is said about it. I recommend removing that image.

I agree; removed.

• Citations are generally unneeded in the lead, unless it is something particularly controversial or likely to be challenged. The information should be repeated in the body of the article and cited there.

All lead citations removed and provided later in the text.

• There is gaming jargon present in the lead (ex. "ad-hoc and infrastructure multiplayer modes"; "second analog nub") that will lose a general audience. Those terms need linking or context.

I reworded the lead - do you think those terms should be explained more fully in the article proper?

• "Each side has a set number of reinforcement "tickets" at the beginning of the battle - any time a soldier dies" You'll need to use either an unspaced em dash (my preference) or a spaced en dash to indicate a break in text, and be consistent. Hyphens cannot be used in this fashion.

Fixed.

• The entire first paragraph of the Gameplay section is unsourced... why?

I'll work on it.

• The statement about the plot hole in the Plot section is considered original research without a citation, and therefore not allowed. If there is a source that commented on this, better to place the whole statement in the Reception section.

Gone.

• Avoid immediate language like "Critical reception of the game was mixed, and it currently holds a score of 73% on media aggregator site Metacritic, which indicates "mixed or average reviews." Better to say, "As of ...., it holds a score of"

Reworded.

• A big concern is your use of sources. Many of them don't appear to meet the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline. We will need proof that they have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial process—this usually comes in the form of being cited as reliable by other gaming publications that are known to be reliable. I'd strongly suggest you do a library search of gaming publications to get some reviews sources to magazines and other more reliable sources. Some problem sites:
  • Wookieepedia - a wiki will never be reliable
  • Gamestyle - they are notable, but what makes them reliable?
  • Filefactory - can't find any info about their editorial process

I'll try to improve the citation quality. I'm still trying to get my head around it.

• The prose looks pretty good. I made some changes as I read, so you might want to check them over. Overall, great work! --Laser brain (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to critique it! Let me know if you have any other suggestions. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 15:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• "Gameplay" feels a little long to me, especially compared to the rest of the article, which is short in comparison.
• "Development" can probably be longer, especially for such a recent game. There's an interview that's available, for instance.

I agree on both counts.

Gary King (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! — Levi van Tine (t – c) 15:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)