This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Finland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FinlandWikipedia:WikiProject FinlandTemplate:WikiProject FinlandFinland articles
Decent, but has substantial clarity and broadness issues to overcome. Please respond below my signature so as to leave the original review uninterrupted.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
Do players progress linearly though the levels? Can they choose which one they want to play? What kinds of projectiles does the ship shoot and where are the enemies coming from? Not sure the ship names matter here. I'm still not clear how this game works by the end of the section. Please clarify. Might be good to start with the basic controls, basic goals, etc. Single-player, multiplayer not explained.
Reception on broadness/clarity: Resogun's claim to fame is how reviewers found it the best PS4 launch title. It's hardly mentioned! More appropriately, it should be at the top of Reception. One of the interviews mentioned it was the top-rated PS4 game—was it? If so, that's obviously worth including (if sourced not from the interview). Also is there any rhyme or reason to this section? Almost every sentence is apparently unrelated to the next. Can you group them by things they have in common so as to make the information accessible? Not sure the scores are worth repeating if they're just in the reviews box to the right and are apropos of nothing.
Also Resogun won at least one big award that wasn't listed. After these fixes, the lede should be updated accordingly
for clarity, link jargon: "retro", "trophies", speed boost, game difficulties, levels
Lede: the Stardust titles are listed by name in the lede but not in the prose
Pickles and Pulkkinen in the infobox are unsourced in the rest of the article
Unsourced: several ¶ in Gameplay are unsourced. It should be sourced to secondary sources with references.
Source verification failed: the release dates are not in its reference
PSILU is not a reliable source, and perhaps not for S2P, gamerssphere either... I would check with WP:VG/RS. Sometimes a special case is made when articles use unreliable sources for their interviews...
NeoGAF is not a reliable source and must be replaced
How long was it in development? Would seem basic to know
what is the [sic] for?
These quotes can be paraphrased just fine, which is preferred over lengthy quotes
Grammar in Reception: punctuation should go on the outside almost always, per MOS:QUOTE
{{Infobox video game}} uses the |media= only where the distribution is ambiguous, which it isn't in this case. Should be removed.
size of screenshot needed to be reduced (length times width should be less than 100,000)
same for the logo, and its FUR needs to be actually filled out
The screenshot's rationale is also weak
The screenshot is very busy. It would help to have an explanation of what is happening within its caption.
Defender's image lacks a fair use rationale for this article. It either needs one, or to be removed.
I contacted the dev about releasing assets under free-use and they said that the assets were owned by Sony and that Sony wouldn't do so
outside GAN scope
Not sure all of those dates are needed in the lede
those quotes in the lede are not necessary—it should be focused on being overview in nature, unless those quotes indicate something representative of all reviews
usually the game that won the award is not in the lede as it isn't vital to include
@SolarStarSpire, since it's been over a week and it doesn't look like the structural issues can be easily rectified, how would you feel about letting this go for now and renominating it in the future? czar ♔19:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]