Wikipedia:Peer review/Drakengard 2/archive1
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I have done extensive work on the article and intend to bring it forward in the future as GA candidate. What else needs to be done here, and how can what is currently there be refined?
Comments from Tezero:
- Reception should be reorganized to go issue-by-issue rather than reviewer-by-reviewer. The reason for this preference among video game GAs and FAs is that there may be tons of reviews, so it may be arbitrary to give WP:Undue weight to featured ones. However, there will typically only be a few major points of praise or criticism. For Drakengard 2, it looks like reviewers were unimpressed with the graphics' low innovation, found the gameplay repetitive, and gave mixed comments to the story and aesthetics.
- Also, from the looks of the scores, it should just be "mixed" reviews rather than "mixed to negative". The only score shown that falls below 50% (or an equivalent) is 1UP's.
- Less weightily, it's "1UP", not "1Up".
- I feel like Gameplay is a little short. You could go into more detail about the ways in which the player's abilities and dragon are improved with EXP, for example.
- Gameplay also needs a screenshot - or two, if the dragon and combat parts of the game are that different.
- I don't think the article adequately explains the integration of the dragon mechanics into the overall game. Can you hop onto it during battles? If so, do you then leave the battles? If not, are the "enemies" you attack the same ones from the battles? Are there adventure elements, or is dragon flight localized to combat?
- Decapitalize "Characters" in "Setting and Characters".
- The intro's too short and doesn't go into the Plot, Development, or Reception at all. Tezero (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Gabriel Yuji:
- instead of "called ... in Japan", I think it's better "known as ... in Japan"
- knight is an example of WP:OVERLINK of a everyday word; and Cavia is linked twice in the lead
- the article is opened with "is an action role-playing game developed by Cavia" and again is said "It was developed by Cavia" in the second paragraph; the sentences "with the previous game's producer and character designer returning to their respective roles" and "Multiple staff members from the previous game, including producer Takamasa Shiba and character designer Kimihiko Fujisaka, returned." are also repeated information
- "The game received strong sales" doesn't seem an encyclopedic tone; sincerely, I don't know a better way to re-write it, so I only suggest you to remove it and keep only "The game has sold over 206,000 copies in Japan by the end of 2005"; Maybe you can add in the reception section that it was considered a "hit" by Ubisoft akin the way Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars mentions Capcom was satisfied with the sales number; I think it will be more neutral since it's declaration of a primary source
- I would write "Western reviews praised the story, but gave mixed opinion about the graphics and widely criticized the gameplay." rather than "Western reviews were mixed to positive, with many praising the story, but being more mixed about the graphics and widely criticizing the gameplay." Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)