Wikipedia:Peer review/Madeline (video game series)/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
I've listed this article for peer review because… @Aoba47: and I have worked tirelessly on this article, and we are both aiming to bring it to GA and ideally FA. We'd like to give it the best chance of reaching these milestones. In terms of the article, it needs a thorough once-over, sussing out the layout, the references, the content, and the flow, along other things.
Thanks, Coin945 (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Dig deeper
[edit]The article was very well written. I spent a lot more time on the article than I normally would because in my opinion it is a very good candidate for a feature article. I hope my comments and suggestions are helpful.
I added the page to Madeline (disambiguation)--there's a whole section there on the fictional character.
First impression... I would recommend adding more images to the article. And separate the screen shots, it looks a little confusing on top of each other like that.
You may want to add that the internet archive made this game series available for free download a few years back. See here and Internet_Archive#Software. At the very least to the external links. I'll let you decide.
"There were seven additional game titles and two compilations". What's a compilation?
Consider removing the release dates. It doesn't need to be that accurate, and nice looking table to the right provides all the years (i.e. kind of redundant).
Careful with verb tenses. The game was made and designed in the past, but is played and Madeline interacts in the present. See WP:INUNIVERSE. There were only a few errors for this that I noticed. Tricky.
There are a lot of references. It could be seen as citation overkill. This isn't exactly a controversial subject. Be especially cautious about using the game itself as a reference. This may be considered original research.
Similarly short quoted phrases "that are included"[1] in "quotation marks"[2] can be "somewhat distracting"[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. You have used a lot of these, much more than the average. Even quoting children. Not ideal. Better to paraphrase (or delete) these, even if reviews. Besides being distracting there may be copyright issues if used to excess. See MOS:QUOTE for more information on quotes.
Also from the manual of style MOS:BADEMPHASIS
- Quotation marks for emphasis of a single word or phrase, or scare quotes, are discouraged. Quotation marks are to show that you are using the correct word as quoted from the original source. For example: His tombstone was inscribed with the name "Aaron" instead of the spelling he used during his life.
Also some quotes are borderline advertising or company mission statements. Try to avoid these.
The use of bold for the individual works should be replaced with italics as per WP:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Names_and_titles (under "Major works of art and artifice").
I went ahead and corrected many of these issues. Overall very thorough and interesting article. Well done. It was a pleasure to read.
Also please consider reviewing my article here. Thanks.Dig Deeper (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)