Wikipedia:Peer review/List of video games in the Museum of Modern Art/archive1

List of video games in the Museum of Modern Art

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see if I can get this to Featured List. It'll be my first Featured-class article, so I'm just going through the process step by step and figured a peer review would be a good start. One issue I am aware of is that the TED talk is no longer there. Though I can find it on YouTube, I am not sure how to fix the citation accordingly. Either way, please give feedback on how to improve this list ^_^

Thanks, ~Mable (chat) 08:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I've done a bunch of video game FLs and am currently an FLC delegate, so I'll see what advice I can give you.

• You call it the Museum of Modern Arts once
• "with plans to expand to forty games if they are able to acquire the display rights for them" -> "with plans to expand the collection to up to forty games over time, contingent on the museum acquiring display rights for the additional games"
• "Six more were acquired in June 2013, as well a game console" -> "Six more games were added to the collection in June 2013, as well a game console". (acquired is a bad word here; unlike a painting, you can "acquire" multiple copies of these games pretty easily, so the parallel to acquiring a painting would be acquiring the master game copy/rights itself, which isn't what's going on. They "acquired" the rights to display the games as a part of the collection, but more direct is that they added the games to the collection.
• The lead is a little scant; since you're writing it as a lead, rather than as a intro to a table, maybe summarize a little more of background, i.e. talk a bit about how the games are displayed (box on a shelf vs. gameplay video vs. playable screen).
• Link the Magnavox Odyssey in Background
• The table is pretty bare. Besides the notes, generally unused, it's just game-platform-year. Given that the MoMA talks about that they picked a lot of early games because they were more artisan crafts by a small team, consider adding a "developer" column and a "lead designer" column to play off of this. You definitely need a "date added" column, since 6 of the games were added on a different date, and more may be forthcoming. Also, make a "Ref(s)." column and move the references to it; they're not quite right where they are since you're not actually citing the name of the game, but the fact that it's in the collection.

• "Besides an assortment of games for the Magnavox Odyssey console, these are in chronological order:" - I cannot parse this sentence.
• The TED talk moved to here - looks like the original URL had a typo in her name
• Refs look fine; I'd prefer publishers for all the cites but that's not actually required
• Except that you have the works as "MoMA" and "PCMag", instead of the proper names
• Redirects that don't look intentional: digital font, arcade machine, maybe 8-bit era, Ralph Baer (2x), mobile gaming (lots x), PC gaming (lots x), Massively multiplayer online, Simcity 2000 (typo), Yar's Revenge (typo), PlayStation 1, Street Fighter II
• An external link to The Art of Video Games, the Smithsonian's video game exhibit, might be in order- given that it came out 9 months before MoMA announced theirs, I wonder if there's any inspiration there.
• General advice, since it's your first FLC- FLC moves slow. Especially in areas that don't get a lot of FLCs in general- like video games. The easy ways to avoid having your nomination sit there for 1-2 months with barely any replies (besides me, I'll review since I'll have to recuse myself due to this PR) are twofold: the WT:VG review trading/begging threads help a bit, but the best way is to review other FLCs, and at the bottom of your review ask if they could do you a favor and review yours as well. Don't worry about "knowing enough" to review- as long as you actually read through the list, and are able to make a few comments about things that seem off to you or that you might do differently, the review will be just fine. --PresN 15:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh boy, this is a lot. I've read through your suggestions and have changed everything accordingly, unless noted otherwise.

• "with plans to expand to forty games ..." changed it partially, as I do like most of your phrasing, but part of it seemed unnecessarily complex.
• I'll think about expanding the lead a little bit to include some information on how games are displayed. Good idea~
• Table needs some work, I'll get on that asap.

Thank you a lot for taking the time to review this, it means a lot to me! I didn't expect there to be this many problems, but I suppose I should have. I will keep your suggestion in mind and will try to review other nominations. The "knowing enough" thing is definitely what is keeping me back, but I suppose I should just do my best and see what I can come up with... Either way, again, thanks for reviewing ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 17:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

All the games in the table were added at the same time? If not it should be more clear in the table. The notes column should be more filled in, and the wishlist probably needs showing the years in parentheses. Nergaal (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Nergaal! The notes column seems to be my mortal enemy - I'm definitely going to wait with trying to get the list featured until I get more details to fill it in with. Either way, I added the years in parentheses - that was not a bad idea :)

About the dates in which the games were added to the collection: there are indeed two waves right now. I was thinking about removing the games' platforms to make room for these dates, what do you think of that? ~Mable (chat) 18:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It might be sufficent to mark down the original list with some color/sign. Keep the platform row in. Nergaal (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that sounds good. I'm gonna look into that this weekend, when I have more time :) ~Mable (chat) 05:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who gave their input - though I will wait for more content before I will list this article as a Featured List Candidate, I do believe the article improved a lot with all your help. Of course, if there is anything else there is to improve the list with, please share your ideas on the article's talk page ^_^ Thanks again~ ~Mable (chat) 11:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)