This peer review discussion has been closed.
Alrighty, this article recently passed its GAN, and I'm planning on pushing for FAC. I'm not the best writer out there, so a peer review to help satisfy the "engaging, professional" prose standard of an FA, and any other issues that might have been missed somewhere, is in order. I'd also like someone to give it a look over to ensure that its written fully in American English, as I'm sure some of my natural British English has slipped in. Thanks! -- Sabre (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by David Fuchs
Overall, it looks really good. One thing to watch in the prose is redundant words that don't add much to the text (cf. Tony1/Redundancy exercises), but I think it's fairly close to FA quality.
- "Tales of Monkey Island complements LucasArts' enhanced remake of the 1990 title The Secret of Monkey Island; LucasArts oversaw production of the game, assisting in areas such as art direction." I'm still not sure entirely what this means: in what was does it complement the remake? Did they share developers/animators/graphic styles? Were they produced at the same time?
- I've tried rewording the sentence to make it clearer. It now reads "The game was developed concurrently with LucasArts' enhanced remake of the 1990 title The Secret of Monkey Island; LucasArts oversaw production of Tales of Monkey Island, ensuring areas such as art direction matched the remake." I'm just wary of going into too much detail as the intro is getting a bit long. -- Sabre (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The game world is explored through use of the keyboard and mouse on the PC, and the Nunchuk on the Wii." Perhaps what the nunchuk is should be explained, lest people think flailing weaponry somehow controls your character?
- "The game marks a first collaboration between the two companies" - this is one of several places in the development section (others being, for example, "the development team asserts that Gilbert's "thumbprints are all over" the game" or "[Michael Land] returns to score Tales of Monkey Island' soundtrack" or "Telltale has produced various items"), where the tense shifts from a historical "past" to a present. It's not necessarily "wrong", in that the elements described could be framed that way, but I think it's less confusing and a better practice to keep this information all in past tense (perhaps this was your intent, and these elements are just relics from when the final episodes were being released. Either way I think now's the time to run through the article and recast them.)
- "rossman stated that they opted to release the WiiWare version of Tales of Monkey Island alongside the PC version as part of their model; they have opted to bounce releases between WiiWare and Xbox Live Arcade, as well as wanting to "give the Wii a little love as well";" - "opt"/"opt" redundancy
- Slightly reworded that, hopefully its now sufficient. "Grossman stated that they opted to release the WiiWare version of Tales of Monkey Island alongside the PC version as part of their model; Telltale bounces releases between WiiWare and Xbox Live Arcade, wanting to "give the Wii a little love as well"." -- Sabre (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a few dead links in the article; I'd suggest going through the pains to WebCite or append Archive.org archiveurl's to all the refs to forestall a similar problem in the future. (Yeah, it's gonna' be a bitch, but I figure for FAs/near-FA quality it's better to be safe than sorry.)
- I can't do anything about those current dead links, the site got hacked after they were referenced here and they haven't put it all back together. I was following WP:Link rot#Keeping dead links on what to do in these circumstances, which just says to tag them if there's no way of replacing them with alternate or archived sources. Hopefully that won't be an issue at FAC: WP:Link rot notes that links shouldn't be removed just because they don't work and dead links still indicate that the info was verifiable in the past. The FA criteria don't mention links anyway. Either way, setting up precautionary WebCite stuff sounds like a good idea. -- Sabre (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not merge File:DeSinge's Lab Final.jpg and File:DeSinge's Lab Concept.jpg together, since they are images for the exact same fair use rationale and purpose (and can only really work together anyhow?)
- For the reception, I think it would be better if the specific reviewers were credited for their comments, rather than just the publications (ex. "The chapter's puzzles were praised, with GameSpy's Ryan Scott commenting that puzzles "generally challenge [the player] just enough without becoming too frustrating",[102]" instead of "The chapter's puzzles were praised, with GameSpy commenting that puzzles "generally challenge [the player] just enough without becoming too frustrating",[102]" and then referring to Scott later.
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Just dropping by the peer review to compliment your very fine work on this article; it should have no problem reaching FA. Copyediting such well-researched material has been a pleasure. On that note, I should be finished with my first pass of the article before too long, after which I'll do a second pass to clean up my own changes. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]