Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/DeFRaG

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DeFRaG

[edit]

I believe in a promotion from Start Class to B-Class article. Article provides almost all required, significant informations related to the subject. I request a peer review prior to taking the article further. Visor (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone another

[edit]

Not the easiest subject to review, I'll do my best:

  • Neutrality is one of the issues which immediately pops up, the article is currently positively weighted. For instance: "id Software's seminal first-person shooter", "a convenient platform", "Outstanding times" (couldn't that be reworded to fast times or something else) and "often impressive spectacle it creates" (nuh-uh). Though the prose is well written I feel like I'm being sold the topic rather than informed about it.
  • Jargon is spread liberally around the article. The second sentence introduces the term trickjumping (without a wikilink) and gives no indication of what that actually is. "virtuously using the force vectors of their recoil" huh? A good read-through, neutralizing and jargon removal would help a lot with readability.
    • As far as I know, the trickjumping article has been deleted. I've placed appropriate note for people unfamiliar with word "trickjumping" in the place where the word has occured for the first time. Visor (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gameplay, instead of being split into a series of paragraphs, is currently spread across hulking bulleted lists of jargon terms. I tried taking it in, but trying to balance all these terms and get a clue about what they involve is too much. The average reader is not going to take all that in - gameplay needs explaining in simple terms, an exhaustive list of every move doesn't do that. Articles exist for a few of the moves, try using those as examples (allowing readers to explore them further) along with any genuine stand-out moves.
    • The list has been reformatted to a prose with paragraphs; more detailed informations has been placed in the Notes section. If somebody wants to read more about more specific term, then he/she is redirected to that section. Visor (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no reception section, getting some feedback on what reliable sources actually thought of the mod would be very helpful.
    • I've found only one review which can be considered as a reliable source. Frankly speaking, I don't expect press review, since such mods are generally neither popular nor mainstream. Visor (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving it there, hopefully a more experienced reviewer will be able to add some other points. Thank you for your work on the article, it's showing real promise. Someoneanother 20:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up, thanks for getting in touch. The article is much improved and I've upgraded it to B rating. Some further suggestions:

  • Neutrality is largely dealt with, except for this techniques part under gameplay: "Trickjumping is not limited to Q3A or DeFRaG, but the richness of techniques, sub-techniques and variants, developed and discussed in-depth by the Q3A trickjumping and DeFRaG community is exceptional." That could really do with a little rewording, 'richness' doesn't convey anything (other than an overtly positive note) and 'exceptional' (outside of a quote) doesn't seem appropriate.
  • Under gameplay, consider collapsing the list of modes into prose. Two small subsections, Techniques and Physics and Ruleset Modes, could be folded into it. This would improve the section considerably.
  • For reception, it's fair enough that there's not going to be a queue of reviewers to quote, but do any of your sources offer comment on the mod itself? Compare it to other mods? Find it useful because..?
    • Yes, I know. I think the notability has been established – the mod has been featured in Spiegel Online, GEE (both German) and some academical papers; see also talk page. The problem is my German is bad and I don't understand these sources very well. I will just leave that section untouched for a while. Visor (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images are clumped together. It would be beneficial to separate them and in particular to not have them directly opposite each other. At least one of them could go in the overview section.
  • The article's lead still doesn't explain what all these terms actually mean, the core gameplay. What's online tricking for instance? Imagine the reader has no preconception of what these things are. Likewise, the overview needs a little more detail up-front, what is the heart of gameplay, what are players doing?
    • Training, competition and machinimia making - all these things are described very detailed. What exactly should be improved? What are players doing—as the article says, players "aim to complete the map's objectives in the shortest time possible". Online tricking is nothing else like a tricking with other players on the server. Players may use team trickjumping which is described in the article. Players may also help themselves, communicate, jump on their heads, etc. but should we really mention about that? :) Visor (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article could use a copy edit, there's several glaring errors and some rewording needed. "Because of their design many of this maps" (these maps), for instance.
  • The short film defragged is externally linked within the article text, please move the link to the external links section.
  • Do you have any materials which could be used to build a development section, interviews etc?

That's all I can see right now. Nice work on the article. Someoneanother 02:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Peer_review/DeFRaG&oldid=206893902"