Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy[edit]

In April, when I began working on this article, it was on the lower end of C-class. Now it recently passed GAN, and I am planning to take it to FAC soon. Any comments you give are appreciated, though I prefer ones about the Gameplay section, and if the article has any grammar, spelling, or MoS issues. For example, I'd prefer not to take the time to get the article copyedited, but if you think it needs it, tell me. Tezkag72 (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Levi’s comments
Infobox

  • No release data for the PC/Xbox versions.
    • I actually didn't get the release info in this article from anywhere; it was already here when I started working on it. I'm going to go to GameFAQs and see what it has to say about it; that site has been deemed reliable here for release dates. Tezkag72 (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Complete release info has now been added, sourced by GameSpot. Tezkag72 (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • The lead as a whole is pretty big, even for the size of the article. Recommend trimming down some of the movie titles or removing them. The third paragraph could be removed completely and its info moved to the other two paragraphs; the region info should be in the first few sentences, and the awards/sales stuff is too detailed. State that the game was popular both commercially and critically, list the biggest sales data (13th-highest-selling game of 05 is good), some of the more common comments from reviewers, and detail the rest later.
  • “It is an action-adventure game whose gameplay is similar to its predecessor, Lego Star Wars: The Video Game.” – “Game” is mentioned in this sentence three times. Can you take out one or two instances?
  • ”…causing Lego Star Wars II to be highly anticipated.” – The sentence doesn’t need this clause, honestly. Explain it later in the article.
  • ”Lego Star Wars II was created for the PC, Xbox, GameCube, PlayStation 2, Game Boy Advance, Nintendo DS, PlayStation Portable, and Xbox 360; some differences are existent between consoles.” – Console info should be in the first few sentences of the lead. The second clause is a little awkward and probably unnecessary.
    • I'm not sure about this. The reason it wasn't like that already was because introductions are supposed to summarize the article, generally in order (this came up in a previous FAC of mine). Tezkag72 (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The game received a rating of E10+ from the Entertainment Software Ratings Board and 3+ from PEGI.” – Unnecessary.
  • Is The Complete Saga a sequel, or a compilation, or an enhanced remake? I’m not sure myself, but it doesn’t seem like a sequel. Soliciting opinions at WT:VG wouldn’t be a bad idea.
    • Changed to "compilation". Thanks; I was concerned about this, but didn't know what else to call it. Tezkag72 (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay

  • This section is also a little big. Consider trimming the bigger paragraphs and merging some of the smaller ones (the second and third, for instance).
    • I merged the second and third paragraphs, but there's not much I can do other than that. Tezkag72 (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Reorganized the section; kept essential info, which was almost all of it. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lego Star Wars II is an action-adventure game whose gameplay is similar to its predecessor, Lego Star Wars: The Video Game." – Consider changing to "Lego Star Wars II is an action-adventure game with gameplay similar to its predecessor, Lego Star Wars: The Video Game."
  • ”Lego Star Wars II presents a humorous view of the original trilogy…” – Consider changing to “Lego Star Wars depicts the original trilogy with a lighter tone…”
    • The specific "humorous" thing was praised by reviewers; I want to make sure that when that's mentioned later in the article, the reader knows what I'm talking about. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ” Silver studs are worth 10, gold are worth 100, blue are worth 1,000, and purple are worth 10,000; no studs are worth 1.” – Unnecessary.
  • What’s the Mos Eisley Cantina? Is it the player’s homebase?
    • That's what the link to it is for. I don't think any of the sources in this article mention the cantina's relation to the game. Tezkag72 (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean why is it important in the context of the game? Vantine84 (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the movies are already listed in detail, consider replacing instances of “episodes IV-VI” in the article with “the movies” or “the films”, such as in the second sentence of the fifth paragraph.
  • ” In story mode, only a few characters can be played, but in free play, all unlocked characters can be played; the player can also do things in free play such as build a tree made of Lego bricks, then destroy it.” - Run-on sentence.

Characters

  • "They include Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, Yoda, Chewbacca, Lando Calrissian, R2-D2, C-3PO, Darth Vader, an Ewok, a Jawa, Greedo, Boba Fett, a Stormtrooper, The Emperor, and the ghosts of Anakin Skywalker, Ben Kenobi, and Yoda.” – Long list, consider trimming it down to 4 or 5.
    • I removed a few of the less important characters, but I don't want to remove the ones used as examples for character abilities in the second paragraph of Characters and elsewhere in the article, because if I did, the reader might be thinking "what? where did that come from?" Tezkag72 (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph is pretty heavily detailed. I'd lose it and include a (single) sentence about customizable characters somewhere else.
    • I'm not sure about this. The customizable character thing was kind of an important part of the game; it's one of three features listed on the back of the box. I don't think one rather small paragraph is too much. Tezkag72 (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

  • Aren’t the countries generally included in “Australasia” covered under the PAL region? I’m not a video game geography expert, but if they are, it’s redundant.
    • Yes. It doesn't matter now, though, because complete release info has now been added, sourced by GameSpot. Tezkag72 (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

  • The reviews infobox needs a little work. It should be expanded to include multiple consoles, for one – consider using {{Video game multiple console reviews}}. I’d also recommend losing the Variety score, but keep the references in the main text. Apropos, find more “mainstream” (non-gaming) reviews if you can, that’s a semi-common problem at game FACs.
    • Why should I lose the Variety review? It's the only "non-gaming" review in the article. Tezkag72 (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because the score is listed as "favorable". Who made that decision, and how are they qualified to do so? Vantine84 (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • About the "multiple consoles" thing, I think there's only one reviewer in there (1UP.com) that even gave reviews for specific consoles. Tezkag72 (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Wow, never mind. Check how it looks now. Is there a way to center the table? Tezkag72 (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m not sure I’d classify the critical response to this game as straight “favorable”, maybe “generally favorable” or even “mixed” if you take all consoles together. There’s a discussion going on at WT:VG with a few opinions about this issue.
    • That's not really up to me in this case, the statement has two sources. Tezkag72 (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ” Variety, GameSpot, and GameSpy agreed.” – This makes it sound like they all reviewed the game together. Consider changing to “Variety, GameSpot, and GameSpy offered similar opinions,” or some such.
    • Done. The only reason it was ever otherwise was because the repetitive "thought similarly" was an issue with Shadow the Hedgehog, which passed FAC because I changed a couple instances to "agreed". Tezkag72 (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph looks like awards and should probably added to the Awards subsection.
    • That's what I thought too. I'm really not sure why it was ever in Critical reception. Tezkag72 (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awards

  • ”…(it came in second to Ōkami)” – Probably unnecessary.

References/Sources

  • Some statements are supported by more than one inline. This is only necessary for particularly controversial statements, which this article doesn’t really contain.
    • I think it's necessary for the "humorous portrayal" statement, since otherwise this could be considered non-NPOV. Tezkag72 (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but there are other instances. Vantine84 (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure all inlines follow punctuation marks.
  • Is Gaming Target a reliable source? Same for TT Games and Kidzworld.
    • I think they're reliable in this case for information about their own awards. I mean, what other site or publication would note them? Tezkag72 (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, are they notable? Vantine84 (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I meant was, no other site would mention the awards that Gaming Target, TT Games, and Kidzworld gave to the game. Tezkag72 (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You were right, though, about Kidzworld. I removed it. Gaming Target, however, has been noted in major publications. Tezkag72 (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks pretty good, in my opinion. It’s A-class. But, I think a copyedit is what it needs to cross over into FA material, especially for the prose. The above examples of specific sentences are just the tip of the iceberg. I know it’s time-consuming, but better to get it done now than get shot down in the FAC and have to do it again later. I’d be willing to copyedit it, if you can't find anyone better. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 12:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the comments. I don't have much time now, but soon I'll get around to all of these. Tezkag72 (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A question, do you think I should create a Plot section (basically just an overview of the films) to give some context to the characters and events mentioned elsewhere in the article? Tezkag72 (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's necessary, to be honest. I wouldn't worry about it unless other reviewers think it should have one. Vantine84 (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just letting you know I entirely forgot about this until today. I'll try and do something soon, but ping me on my talk to remind me if you don't hear from me in a reasonable amount of time. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by David Fuchs
  • Lead:
    • The list of platforms Lego Star Wars was released for seems rather odd coming at the end of the second paragraph. Just fold it into the first.
    • "The game was developed by Traveller's Tales and published by TT Games and LucasArts." General good rule to follow, whenever starting a new paragraph, don't be vague. Use Lego Star Wars.
    • I would spell out the episodes (IV → A New Hope, et al) because that's the more common way they are known.
    • "Reviewers praised the game for its "adorable" and humorous portrayal of the original trilogy" you're quoting someone, so you need a citation after it, but I'm wary about using a single quote to sum up reviewers' comments; better to leave it general.
      • I think all of the reviewers mentioned later in the article as praising it "for its 'adorable' and humorous portrayal of the original trilogy" actually used the word "adorable". Tezkag72 (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "However, the game won numerous awards." However isn't necessary; the fact that parts of the game were criticized and the fact that it also won awards doesn't have to be reconciled. Explain what awards it won?
      • It did win numerous awards, so I'm hesitant to include a list, also that would make the lead a bit too long. Tezkag72 (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Body:
    • "whereas Lego Star Wars's levels covered the events of episodes I (The Phantom Menace), II (Attack of the Clones), and III (Revenge of the Sith), which are collectively known as the prequel trilogy"... that entire sentence goes on a long bit. Cutting out the episode numerals would help flow, as would putting the second part of the sentence first, if you really think it's necessary.
      • Done. The second part is necessary because "prequel trilogy" and "original trilogy" are used later in the article.
    • "Each level is first played in story mode; once it has been completed, it can be played in free play, and the next level in the same episode can be played in story mode. In story mode, only a few characters can be played, but in free play, all unlocked characters can be played." rather rough patch to get through, could use some tinkering to improve flow.
    • There are issues with repetitious syntax, like using "characters" over.. and over... and over. They render the prose a tad boring, and in some cases non-specific, ex. "R2-D2, C-3PO, and other characters are needed to open certain doors.[31]"; what other characters? Also, "X can Y" in characters section is bad.
      • Rewritten a bit, but why do you say "bad"? Tezkag72 (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's just a boring format "Jack can run, Jill can jump, John can work..." just gets repetitive. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • How should I word it instead? Tezkag72 (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Never mind. Reworded; how does it look now? Tezkag72 (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The use old save paragraph is only two sentences and thus not a real paragraph.
      • Merged to second paragraph of Characters. Tezkag72 (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The development section needs some tinkering; there's issues with flow and bad organization of facts, for instance talking about leaks and the announcement of Lego Star Wars II, the jumping back to the sales figures of the first game (and are the sales really the reason for the anticipation? Check your source.)
      • Rearranged info. See how it looks now. Tezkag72 (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The critical reception table is breaking the article layout.
      • I don't think there's really anything I can do about that without making the table so long vertically that it goes into References. I've been wondering, is there a way to center the table? Tezkag72 (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering there's so many platforms, I would expect a beefier section.
      • The fact is, many of the reviews for different platforms were just copy-and-pasted. For the most part, the reviewers only bothered to write different reviews for the Game Boy Advance and the DS; that's why that last paragraph's there. Tezkag72 (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Misc:
    • You need to do some ref cleanup. Naming all of GameSpy's reviews the exact same title does not help at all (add the parenthesis for the system, for example, as it is in the source titles.) Same goes with all the other refs. Having seemingly identical refs lead to different pages is bad.
      • Those references really do have identical titles, but done. Tezkag72 (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The images in the article need to be reduced in size to meet WP:NFCC; the cover can be shrunk to 256px wide, and the image should weigh in at <.1 megapixels total resolution. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Peer_review/Lego_Star_Wars_II:_The_Original_Trilogy&oldid=1148685013"