Dungeon Keeper edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working heavily on this article lately, and have only managed to get it up to C class (from Start class). I've tried to make the prose the best as I can get it, but I'm still not sure if it's good enough. I also haven't been able to find any reliable info about Dungeon Keeper Premium other than the guide book and what was on EA's website, nothing about the differences from non-premium or anything. I still think it's worth a mention, but readers will naturally wonder why it's called Premium (and so do I come to that). I haven't been able to reliably source what the Japanese article says about it either. I also haven't been able to find archives for a couple of the reviews, and had to make do with using Bullfrog's website as the reference. Is this good enough? I'm also wondering if I should go into a bit more detail about the level editor, and explain about the script language, but does that venture into WP:GAMECRUFT territory? I reckon that if it wasn't for these obstacles, this could have the potential to be a GA. Thanks, Adam9007 (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- If you can't find info on "Dungeon Keeper Premium", keep it to a minimum, or what you can source. Perhaps it's just a sentence of mention. Alternatively, don't mention it—it's not mentioned in the sources. Which reviews do you need help finding? ({{ping}} me?) What's the question about using Bullfrog's site? As for the rest, remember that you're writing for a general audience. If a general audience would be interested in more detail, go for it. I'll add that the superscript page citations are really a mess... very hard to read (and I believe the standard format is ("[1]:99" not "[1](p99)"). Any reason why you wouldn't use {{sfn}} with those instead? czar 18:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Czar: Sorry for the late reply, I have this page on my watchlist and didn't see any response until now! The only info I can find on Dungeon Keeper Premium is EA's site and the guide book, and for the article to be broad, I think it should be mentioned. There are three reviews on Bullfrog's site, and I only have the actual source for one of them (The PC Gamer one). I have been unable to find archives of the other two. Bullfrog is a primary source; aren't secondary sources preferred? As for the citations, this doesn't use Harvard. Is there something wrong with the {{rp}} template? I've gotten two articles up to GA that both use that template. Adam9007 (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- If you link the sources, I can try to help recover the originals. Primary sources should only be used rarely: see self-published sources. Depends on the claim it's making. Is there anything technically policy-breaking about {{rp}}? I haven't double-checked but I doubt it. Does it make the text very difficult to read? Yes, which is why I'd recommend using a citation format easier for the reader to view. czar 01:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Czar: What do you mean by linking to the sources? The PC Zone and PC Format reviews are cited to Bullfrog's website. I've found archives of those magazines, but not the issue I need. I'm not aware of anything wrong with using the RP template, and it's better than cluttering the references section with umpteen references to the same books. I've found out that all I had to do was delete the page(s) parameter to get rid of the ugly Ps, is it better now? Adam9007 (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- I meant that it's easier to link what you have rather than having me search through links in the article. I think most will agree that footnotes like [2]:26,33[4]:92[5]:22–24 are very unwieldy, which is why we use short footnotes in the first place—much less distracting to read the main text (most people won't read the footnotes) but the specifics are there for those who want them. I think that's the last I'll say about that. czar 02:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Czar: What do you mean by linking to the sources? The PC Zone and PC Format reviews are cited to Bullfrog's website. I've found archives of those magazines, but not the issue I need. I'm not aware of anything wrong with using the RP template, and it's better than cluttering the references section with umpteen references to the same books. I've found out that all I had to do was delete the page(s) parameter to get rid of the ugly Ps, is it better now? Adam9007 (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- If you link the sources, I can try to help recover the originals. Primary sources should only be used rarely: see self-published sources. Depends on the claim it's making. Is there anything technically policy-breaking about {{rp}}? I haven't double-checked but I doubt it. Does it make the text very difficult to read? Yes, which is why I'd recommend using a citation format easier for the reader to view. czar 01:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Czar: Sorry for the late reply, I have this page on my watchlist and didn't see any response until now! The only info I can find on Dungeon Keeper Premium is EA's site and the guide book, and for the article to be broad, I think it should be mentioned. There are three reviews on Bullfrog's site, and I only have the actual source for one of them (The PC Gamer one). I have been unable to find archives of the other two. Bullfrog is a primary source; aren't secondary sources preferred? As for the citations, this doesn't use Harvard. Is there something wrong with the {{rp}} template? I've gotten two articles up to GA that both use that template. Adam9007 (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Closing this peer review due to a lack of any discussion for (almost) a month. I think Adam's question has been answered in the Ridge Racer FAC. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)