Wikipedia:Peer review/Wisp (Sonic)/archive1

Wisp (Sonic)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article passed GAN at the end of last month and I'm interested in taking it to the final step. I considered taking it straight to FAC after whatever quick comments WP:VG could offer, but @Sergecross73: pointed out that the subject has a particularly obscure role in gaming (Wisps are literally items from two Sonic the Hedgehog games and a single throwback-style level of a third one – to be clear, though, their notability is well-founded per copious third-party sources), and the article uses a table that could be seen as crufty, so I'd better overprepare as feedback could be particularly harsh from the get-go.

I tend to overly specify which kinds of comments I want most at peer reviews, which may stifle discussion of truly pressing issues, so I'll only say this: I would rather not scrap the table entirely, as numerous Wisps' names, abilities, and appearances are referenced elsewhere in the article such that full incorporation of this information into the text could bloat it or take the reader on too many tangents. With that said, there may well be ways to condense the table.

Thanks, Tezero (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments by CalvinK(talk): I have had a good read of this article and I had no knowledge of the subject matter. As you are looking to potentially take it to FA nomination, I have used the FA criteria to base my review. This should not be taken as a definite pass for FA once the issues have been corrected - the ladies and gentlemen at the FA review are much more experienced than I am.

Some things to think about are as follows:

• "They debuted in the Wii/Nintendo DS game Sonic Colors in 2010, where Sonic can use them as power-ups while he rescues others from Doctor Eggman, who plans to use them for a mind control ray." To me this is a very difficult sentence and could do with being tidied up a bit. It might be worthwhile to break it into two longer sentences just to make it a bit clearer. Other than that, the lead paragraph is good.
• That table. I appreciate what you're saying about it and at this time can not think of any way around it. I would certainly give a very brief few sentences in that section before the table, perhaps something along the lines of "there are x different types of Wisps".
• Sources are good. Reception section is balanced.
• Media is non-free but adequate rationale has been placed.
• Stable article

It is an engaging read and I felt it was well written. I would say all you need to is tidy up that sentence in the lead, and do something about that table (at the very least add a sentence in that section!) and it should be OK at FA Nom.

Done and done. I hope I can count on your support, possibly after some further comments, at FAC when it happens, which should be soon. Tezero (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)