Wikipedia:Peer review/Habbo Hotel/archive2

Habbo Hotel has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived.

Habbo Hotel

Relisting for peer review, as I received no response last time. I'd really like for someone to give this article a thorough review, if not, a short note pointing out some obvious errors. Input on the talk page is limited, so please, any input will be much appreciated. Kind regards, –sebi 05:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Box at the top: "This article or section is written like an advertisement.". That's no good. Plenty of pictures, good (although be careful with copyright, that's a lot of fair-use images). There appears to be a lot of content about the in-game world, although not that much about the game itself. I think you should shorten the "Inside the Hotel" section. i.e., you probably don't need to explain the four in-game games with a paragraph each, just give them a sentence (e.g. Wobble Squabble - an elimination game played on inflatables in a swimming pool in the Hotel). The image under "Habbo eXperts" flows beyond its section, killing the line under "Sponsorship", you should move that image up so its under the previous heading. There are some table cells missing in "Current Hotels". --TheJosh 12:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only pictures that we can include that are relevant to the subject are in-game screenshots, which are fair-use images, and so there's not a lot anyone can do about that. The inside the hotel section is just about the main cause of that advert tag at the top of the page, I'll discuss that a little further on the talk page. And I'm planning to expand the Habbo eXpert section and the Sponsorship section, so it might fit after I've finished. Thanks for the review, though :) –sebi 07:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Giggy

Well, the advertisment tag isn't a good start.

The lead is to long and drawn out IMO - we really don't need that much of a gameplay analysis in it. Merge paragraphs 2 and 3, and shorten them both, so it's only a broad, broad summary.

I actually think the lead is a perfect size, but thanks for the suggestion anyway. –sebi 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's because too much of the article is devoted to gameplay ;) If you shorten that and de-cruft it, you'll have to shorten the lead too! Giggy ^Talk 06:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the lead only covers a short history, credits and furniture, moderation and management and achievements in a short summary; these are the most important points of the article. I personally believe that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the lead right now. –sebi 07:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expand the history section - discuss the idea, the creation, any problems in its creation, etc. That's a much more important section then gameplay etc.

Remove the subsections in the features section, and merge the whole thing into one paragraph on features - avoid gamecruft, this isn't a game manual.

Same with the inside the hotel section - a few paragraphs could summarise the entire thing. Precedent: [1] The current article discusses gameplay, and instructs, way to much - shouldn't be a game guide!

You only really need one paragraph on mods and experts, not all the (I'll say it again) cruft.

IMHO, the mods and experts sections don't look like cruft to me, the information in them is quite valuable. If you could point out a couple of advertise-y comments in those sections, I'll remove them. –sebi 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moderators can be recognised by the prefix "MOD-" in front of their account name and by a Habbo Staff badge. - Does the article really need this? It's totally useless to someone who isn't/hasn't played the game. Habbo eXperts are given a badge next to their avatar to enable newer users to identify them easily - Same...and a lot of the gameplay based statements here fall under the same cat (only I don't want to cite the majority of the paragraph!) Giggy ^Talk 06:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expand on the sponsorship section, wherever possible. This is something that the article SHOULD discuss.

I have an idea on expanding the section, I'll make the changes later on. –sebi 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section could be merged into a separate list article.

Really? I wouldn't have thought so, the list isn't that long. –sebi 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if you make a separate list article, you can discuss the hotels too, rather then just plonking them on this one. Giggy ^Talk 06:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to discuss? I think that everything about the Hotel can be included in this one article, rather than expanding to other articles; the scope isn't that large anyway. –sebi 07:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the external links - where's the link to the HH home page, etc.?

As there are 29 hotels with 29 different home pages, the Current hotels list has all the links to the websites. –sebi 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a "main" hotel? Giggy ^Talk 06:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. –sebi 07:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got for now...I've watchlisted this page, so ask any questions :) Giggy ^Talk 23:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]
- Nope, all pictures that could be of any use are copyrighted screenshots, so this can't be done. –sebi 02:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know it sounds like a long shot, or just odd, but sometimes a picture of people playing the game is appreciated. Strange, yes, but most a few people ask for that sort of thing... Giggy ^Talk 07:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 23 additive terms, a bit too much.
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “~~All~~ pigs are pink, so we thought of ~~a number of~~ ways to turn them green.”
The script has spotted the following contractions: wouldn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
- "Wouldn't" wasn't found in the article, it was found in the html comment text, so I'm ignoring this. –sebi 02:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 15:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]