This peer review discussion has been closed.
Video games aren't known for attracting robust peer reviews (especially since there are so many FACs to attend to right now), but I'm looking for feedback on an article I've been building for a while. Looking for some advice from those interested on where I may be missing the forest for the trees. Any standard feedback appreciated—would like to take this to FAC eventually. 01:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Tezero
Here are the major obstructions I see:
- "Many critics considered Titanfall to be the next step for the first-person shooter genre, and the game received abundant publicity from video game journalists." - This sentence isn't really necessary, as both parts are covered elsewhere in the section.
- I'd separate Reception into "Pre-release" and "Reviews" or something to break up the wall a bit.
- Likewise, Development could probably be split up a little.
- What's the story of Expedition like? If there's enough to say about the expansion, you can probably create a subsection for it.
- "The two opposing Titanfall teams each have their own musical fingerprints" - Elaborate.
- That first sentence is there to signpost the rest of the section. I left the subsections out to keep it cleaner—I think it's more personal preference unless there's a readability argument. No info released on Expedition yet, but probably a subsection eventually. Rephrased "fingerprints"—I have one source I may use to expand that section. I likely won't be able to get to the other peer reviews due to life afk (and I do think you can only have one up at a time per the rules), but I appreciate the feedback 22:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Solitary comment from The ed17
- @The ed17: Thanks for stopping by. They weren't mentioned by name in any of the reliable sources so I didn't think it was notable information 02:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)