Wikipedia:Peer review/Good Game/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Good Game[edit]

Toolbox

* Further information

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… this article was recently expanded by me, adding tonnes of sources and trying to get rid of all the pointless trivia lists. I'm struggling to conceptualise how the article sections should be structures, and am having trouble trying to discern what is important info and what is trivia. I would greatly appreciate a review to help suss out how to refine the improvement. .--Coin945 (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Coin945 (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from LT910001[edit]

Oh my, Coin945, oh my! This is quite a long article! I'd suggest:

  • Increase the length of the lead so that it is summarises the article
  • Add some wikilinks so that non-informed users can understand some of the concepts
  • Decrease the "Hex said...", "Bajo said...".
    • Firstly, these are primary sources and not reliable sources, so if possible information from other sources should be used. I'd strongly suggest find some sources about good game, rather than those that are from good game.
    • Secondly, these are quite verbose and could be summarised (if they are retained). For example "Bajo says "It's always game play for me. I don't care what the game is about, if the game play is engaging, challenging and interesting to me, I will play the hell out of it and I'll love it. Second, for me it needs a good story. I'm also a graphics whore, I just need it to look good".[" can be summarised as: "Host Bajo prefers games that are engaging, challenging, interesting and with good story and graphics". Note however that this is Bajo's own description of what he prefers, and, as stated, not reliable.
  • Consider splitting the long paragraphcs into paragraphs organised by topic. Use a topic sentence to group information. This will enhance readability
  • There's a really long list of good articles about TV shows here: Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Television. You might want to check out one or two to see how other editors have arranged articles about TV shows.
  • Consider trimming some of the "Relationship with audience" section. One helpful thing to think about is whether or not the content here will be relevant to users reading this article about good game in 5, 10, 15 years time.
  • Consider combining some of the smaller sections together. The "Good game spinoffs" section could include the sections about the book and mobile app
  • Consider combining "credibility" with "Critical reception", or "Critical reception" and "Awards"
  • Consider changing the organization of the article so that there is some discussion of what the show is, how long its been running, the layout of each episode, the hosts, and then special episodes and reception, in what I think is a more logical order for readers who aren't acquainted with the TV show.
  • I'm not sure where "Philosophy" belongs but probably in the first section I suggested above (about the structure of its show and seasons).

It's clear that the editors are quite passionate about this article! However it may need some new sources and a significant trim of quotes from the hosts. I hope this is helpful! Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Thankyou very much for the feedback LT910001. I don't suppose peer reviewers actually help with the edit, do they.. Gahh I suck at this part of the article evolution process. Every time I try to start copyediting I run away in fear. I think I need to acknowledge this is not my area of expertise and know when to seek help from those more experienced than I. I wonder where I could go about getting better sources from. I seemed to swipe all useable sources from a number of different places. Hmmm..--Coin945 (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (I would be quite happy with a brutal series of edits that removes all the crap and trivia that's bogging the article down. A similar thing happened to Carmen Sandiego's Great Chase Through Time, and Horrible Histories (book series) - all of which were heavily edited by me but subsequently chopped down--Coin945 (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Coin945, sorry, I'm not knowledgeable about this topic so I wouldn't know what to cut! You are in the best place to make this decision. In the case of very long sections, it may be worthwhile re-writing sections from scratch in your sandbox and then replacing the sections at hand. As you're writing you can use sources from the original sections, but you don't have that pressure to conform to the previous writing layout or style. Cheers, --LT910001 (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)