Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Wonder Boy III: The Dragon's Trap

Wonder Boy III: The Dragon's Trap edit

I would like to get someone to do a general review of the article to see if I did everything okay. Main focus is on the "Gameplay" section, which I am afraid may be redundant and wordy, but I'm not sure how to tackle it if that is the case. –MuZemike 01:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hulk16 (talk)

This is a good article overall, just some minor suggestions:

In the lead you might want to define what 8-bit is or link to it.

I linked to 8-bit, unless you folks feel that piping the link to history of video game consoles (third generation) is a better choice. –MuZemike 19:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think that linking to 8-bit is fine--Hulk16 19:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

~~The first sentence in Gameplay is a little long, perhaps put a period after "role-playing game" and start the next sentence with "The player controls".~~
~~In the second paragraph of Gameplay either take out the "though some do not" because it already states that "normally", this is just contradicting itself.~~
~~In the reception section you start off two sentences with "The review", change one of them to avoid repetition.~~
To me it looks like the entire Legacy section is just more reviews of the same game or a slightly different version at a later time. I think you should just move the section into the reception section, or rename it to show that these reviews were later and for different versions.
Some of the external links need to be removed per WP:VG/EL. --Hulk16 02:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed a couple of external links, mainly the fansite at the bottom, and Allgame link (it's already listed as a reference), and the IGN "series overview", which I may include later as a reference if I find room for it. As for the others, I left in there per WP:ELMAYBE#4, as they're borderline non-RS but provides additional information. –MuZemike 19:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on removing the unreliable sources, the rest look acceptable if they provide enough information--Hulk16 19:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Someone another

I agree with Hulk16 about the legacy section, perhaps it would be better to do away with the sub-section and instead notify the reader that they're reading about the reception of the much later re-release.
The re-release reviews themselves are thin on the ground, are there no more?

Unless you consider Nintendolife.com and Gamesarefun.com RS's (which currently I do not believe), then there's not much else, at least online. –MuZemike 19:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Development is almost exclusively related to release information, would it not be better renamed Development and release?

I could, if that makes it more clear to the readers. I know that the standard practice is to have "Development", though I understand that is not always the case. –MuZemike 19:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Wonder Boy III: The Dragon's Trap first received coverage in the September 1989 issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly," - how do you know? Is it not more likely that the Japanese press first covered it? It's not a necessary statement anyway.
~~There's a review in the magazine Zero from back in the day which doesn't seem to be used currently, any good?~~

~~When I get more time, I'll look into including that in the article as well. –MuZemike 19:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Apart from that very well done, it's great to see such a classic getting such treatment. Someone another 22:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've nothing to add to the above, nice work, except about what to call development. Normally I'm loathe to move away from the four or three usual headings (gameplay, development, reception and plot if such a section is necessary), so I understand your reticence. However, apart from the first sentence stating that it's developed by x and published by y the entire section is a list of releases and lacking in development information. I would be inclined to change it to "development and release" or "releases" just so it reflects what's actually there. Someone another 20:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, I really should watchlist the peer review page! :-) Anyways, I have made relevant changes via this diff here. Stuff addressed above have been struck or explained further. –MuZemike 19:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]