Wikipedia:Peer review/Undertale/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it to FA status. Expecting a TFA on the game's tenth anniversary.
Thanks, lunaeclipse (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comments from Skyshifter
Welp, I literally had that same idea too! Here are some things that I'm pretty sure should be done before a FAC.
- Undertale has been studied in multiple scholarly sources. Adding them is necessary for a comprehensive article. It's possible that a "Themes" section can be created.
- The Reception section seems lacking, for a game that received so much attention — in fact, I originally planned to rewrite this section. More reviews and aspects of the game can be added here.
- "Impact and legacy" can likely be expanded to include Undertale's influence in other games. Some retrospective Undertale articles (i.e. "Undertale was released 5 years ago" etc.) could probably be added here. "Fandom" could likely be expanded too — in fact, I think an Undertale fandom article is feasible.
Skyshiftertalk 13:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comments from BP!
- Game Rant sources are low-quality sources that should be omitted.
- Italicize game and film titles in the citation titles per MOS:CONFORMTITLE (this was brought up at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ada Wong/archive1).
- Works/websites/magazines should be all linked at citations
- Italicize the works/websites/magazines since some of them aren't yet, like IGN.
- If some citations don't have an author, just simply remove the "staff" as an author since it's irrelevant.
- Several citations don't have authors. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Aoba47
[edit]I will be unable to do a full review, but I still wanted to add at least some comments to try and help out. For clarification, I am looking at this version of the article. My comments are below:
- I would like to reiterate what Skyshifter has commented on above. A FA would need to be comprehensive on the subject matter and not having scholarly sources would be a major issue for a future FAC. This should be one of the first things addressed.
- I agree with the MOS:CONFORMTITLE point that has already been brought up. Video game titles should be in italics in the citation titles. WP:VG/RS does not list Game Rant as a high-quality source so that should be removed for a FAC. Remember that FAs should only have higher-quality sources that are appropriate for the subject matter.
- I have some other comments regarding the citations. The Japanese citations would need to have an English translation, and avoid putting words in all caps in the citation titles even if the sources does this.
- There should be a consistency on whether or not publishers are included in the citations. Polygon includes Vox Media in some of the citations, but not in all of the citations. There needs to be consistency in how citations are formatted. I am also a bit confused on how items are linked as I see a citation where Polygon is not linked, but a later citation does link the website. You should either link it on the first instance/citation or in every citation. It is really up to you. I prefer to have linked in every citation as I feel it best helps readers, but it is a matter of personal preference.
- This citation does not have a website/publisher in its formatting.
- There are some citations that do not have the author cited. This Kotaku source has Ethan Gach credited, but he is not brought up in the citation. This is another example, in which Liam Doolan is credited in the article, but he is not mentioned in the citation. Here are other instances: 1, 2, and 3 I would double-check all of the citations without an author attributed to make sure there are no further errors.
- There are some instances where the citation is no longer active (at least on my end). For example, this citation now redirects to a completely different page so it would be best to use an archived version of it. I would double-check the citations for this.
- This sentence is unclear:
After the localization's announcement, many fans were surprised by the decision to use the Japanese pronoun oira (おいら) for Sans, leading to the term oira shock.
Further context would need to be added to why the usage of this pronoun is shocking as the prose currently operates under the assumption that readers know everything about this pronoun (and the Japanese pronoun is nice but is not enough context on its own). - I would avoid one-word quotes like in this sentence:
Reviewers praised the game's writing and narrative, which IGN's Plagge called "excellent".
They are not necessarily bad, and I have used them in my own writing on here, but it would be best to use quote sparingly and to focus on ones that would have more impact. The one in the example listed could be paraphrased without losing any real meaning in my opinion.
My focus is primarily on the citations. My primary concerns are the comprehensiveness of the article (specifically the lack of academic coverage used here) and the structure of the citations (such as missing authors, links not being active, etc.). I have included two minor prose-related comments, but these source-related issues should be handled prior to a FAC. Best of luck with this peer review, and apologies for not being able to help more. Aoba47 (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)