Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Ragnarok Online

Ragnarok Online

I know that I have been submitting a lot of requests lately, but Karimarie asked WP:MMO for a peer review so I sent it on over here. Apparently, the article was recently rewritten. By the way, since I am sending so many requests, I hope to actually review some other people's requests (including this one perhaps). Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 17:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Man, why can't more MMO articles look like this? Nifboy 18:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for sending it over here--User:Prod suggested I submit it for peer review with WP:MMO/WP:CVG, but I wasn't sure exactly what I needed to do. Most of the work I've done up to this point has been fixing vandalism and discussing AFDs, so I'm not terribly familiar with actual content creation procedures. I really appreciate your assistance in this regard. :)

Anyway, to the article, I spent a good portion of time yesterday decruftifying and rewriting the article, taking the necessary information and condensing it or rewriting it as much as possible. Any comments/criticism are welcome as this is one of only two articles I've worked on seriously and the other (Berakhot (Talmud)) did not come out so well. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 19:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Krator

I reviewed this article more thorough than I usually do (but still, a flimsy review!). Overall, this is a high quality article, and deserves to be B-class instead of Start, if not for the total lack of information in several topics. The information present is well written and of good quality. Some things I noticed during my review (not necessarily in the order that they appear in the article - reverse, even):

1. Parodies section contains not enough information to be a separate section.
2. The audio section is strange. This summary actually gives more information about the audio than the main article, to someone who's not interested in a track listing. Try to expand with more information. The wikifying is also off here: the word 'genre' is linked while the individual genres are not, and some words linked in the summary are not in the 'main article'.
3. The subsections of the first two sections do not make sense. There's no 'plot' information in the 'plot and setting' section, for example. I suggest removing all subsections in 'plot and setting' (and call the final section 'Setting'), and putting the 'list of locations .. ' reference as a 'see also' at the end of the section. In the same light, merge the PvP and the War of Emperium section. That second name doesn't mean anything to someone without in-depth knowledge, and PvP is too short.
4. The interface section needs attention. Either explain why the interface of Ragnarok is that different from other MMORPGs, or scrap it - assume that your reader is an intelligent layman, smart enough to assume that a PC game needs a mouse and a keyboard. This section is generally not encyclopaedic, and belongs in the game manual, not on Wikipedia.
5. I find the (over)use of the word 'franchise' confusing in the initial section. Try to replace it with other words in some of the sentences.
6. The introduction needs expansion, particularly in the area of players (what sets Ragnarok apart from other MMORPGs, and why do people choose this game over others?) and influence on the genre, as it's one of the earlier MMORPGs.
7. Overall, the article is not very encyclopaedic. It reads like a game manual being copied and wikified, and sometimes uses the same language developers use to make their game seem great. Below are some examples, but many sections are too 'manual' like. This article should tell people about the game, not how to play the game.
   A player will change jobs multiple times over the course of playing, though the number of changes will be determined by choices made by the player.
   ...players are free to roam the game world at their leisure with the only limiting factor being the ferocity of the monsters native to a given area.
   With the exception of the status window, all components of the heads-up display can be disabled by the player.
8. Following up on the above, what is really needed is more different references. If I knew nothing about the subject, I could probably successfully assert that the game is not notable, because the only citations are from the game's home page. Look up some reviews, and make a 'criticism' or if there's a lack of that, 'reviews' section. Also look up some paper resources like PC-gamer. If this game is played competitively in South Korea, I'm sure there's a paper resource for that too.
9. The game was based on a cartoon, I read in the introduction. This isn't named anywhere else. Either remove that, or expand upon it - what are the differences between the two, for example?
10. List of Ragnarok Online locations is VERY unsatisfactory when trying to find out more about the setting. The information already present in the section is good, probably the best section of the article, but I'd like to read more about the places. What is this 'Rune Midgard' thing? Is the Norse mythology referenced in the introduction there?
11. Someone not well versed in MMORPG terms might not get anything of the Quests section. I quote: "There are many quests in the game which provide players with opportunities for gaining experience points, special skills or equipment other than simply killing monsters." As someone who played some MMORPGs, I understand it, and I think it's an important fact to mention, but a 'Yeah... so?' question would be logical from someone not into this genre.

I hope this helps with trying to make RO a featured article, and I look forward to peer-reviewing again when improvements have been made. Forgive my somewhat sarcastic and harsh tone in the above - I mean no harm ;)

--User:Krator (t c) 15:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: I think some content that was in the version of February 5, and no longer is in the article now, was good. Parts of the geography section could be used to explain the game's connection to Norse mythology, like Yggdrasil. The paragraph about economy in 'Basics' is good too, and I miss that in the current article - a good example of encyclopaedic content one wouldn't find in the game's manual.