Wikipedia:Peer review/Jonathan Blow/archive1

Jonathan Blow

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

Hello! I am considering putting this article through the GAN process within the next few weeks. This will be my first time going through the GAN process.

As such, I would very much like to have some eyes look over the article, and provide comments with the goal of improving it so that it will pass GAN. I think I have a solid understand of the expectations around GA quality for a BLP article, but I may have missed something! In addition to general copyediting comments / general article suggestions, please point out anything which currently stops the article from being GA quality.

An additional (minor) point: could a reviewer also please reassess the quality of the article within its respective projects on its talk page? Both currently listed as start class on their quality scales.

Thanks! Neuroxic (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

Comments after a quick skim. A GAN reviewer will give a more thorough review:

Lede might be a little long. Is there a way it can be shortened, either by removing extra words from sentences or information that maybe doesn't belong?
- Done Neuroxic (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ensure that there is a citation at the end of every paragraph, minimum (some are missing in 2017-present)
- Done Neuroxic (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the artistry section, avoid the "X said Y" trap that is often seen in reception sections. See WP:RECEPTION for tips on how to avoid this. I also think this section can be reduced, with many of the quotes summarised and deleted.
- Partly done I tried to improve these issues myself, but my editing skills go only so far. I've tasked the article for copyediting; future copyeditiors will improve the article in ways I cannot. Neuroxic (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid jargon and promotional language in the article, especially in the "Artistry" and "Public image" sections of the article. Try to describe measurable facts rather than opinionated statements. This won't always be possible, but it will help with complying with WP:NPOV.
- Partly done As above. Neuroxic (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Try to shorten the number of words used in sentences to make sections shorter. For example, "Blow is uncomfortable with being described as an indie developer: he feels that the indie game scene is not what is used to be,[104] and that it became something in which he does not belong." Can be "Blow is uncomfortable with being described as an indie developer, as the indie game scene has changed from when he first started developing games,[104] and that he does not feel included within the indie developer community." Readers are more likely to read shorter prose.
- Partly done As above. Neuroxic (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I upgraded the article to B-class. I hope these comments help. Z1720 (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. The comments will definitely help improve the article. I had not realized that that the LS was a bit long, or that though I had used jargon, wikilinking it does not cease to make it jargon! I'll reduce the length of Artistry and Public image task the article for copyediting in general. Neuroxic (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]