Wikipedia:Peer review/Proteus (video game)/archive3

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

Proteus (video game)[edit]

Previous peer review
(more info)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has been at Peer Review twice already, receiving no comments either time, and has recently been at FAC. The FAC received a limited response and was not promoted; I'm requesting a peer review with the aim of the next FAC going smoothly. My main concerns currently are that of quality of writing, but I would also like comments on other aspects of the article.

Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you address all of J Milburn's and Masem's complaints? Tezero (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe so. I've added a link to the FAC above. Sam Walton (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Comments by David Fuchs

{{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Well, I fell off a cliff there, didn't I? Sorry for the extreme delay, but the good news is I didn't have much to pick at. It's a solid article, I think well on its way to FA class. Some thoughts:

  • Given the FA criteria for high quality verifiability, I would strongly suggest manually archiving or appending autoarchived links for all the online refs (,, or… another one that escapes me for pure text). Better to do it now than before it gets difficult!
    • ON the same vein, add publishers to the cite webs.
  • …commenting on how it guided them through the game— feel like this could use a little more, maybe a quote from one of them… how did the music guide them? It's not thoroughly explained in the gameplay section so I feel like we need some background here.
    • I've reworded this, the previous wording made it sound like the audio guides the player from A to B though it doesn't. Sam Walton (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Images are freely licensed wit the appropriate info and licenses, look good.
  • I went through and performed some light line edits.

Other than that I didn't find much to fault. Coverage seems broad and comprehensive, didn't see any issues with the selection of sources used. Haven't had a chance yet to perform a spot-check to make sure sources are being used appropriately. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)