The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the platforms or engine be mentioned in the lead? I think at least the multiple platforms and the later release date should be included.
Done
I would encourage the use of strategy video game instead of strategy game. The current wording is unnecessarily vague and it would be best to clarify that this is about a video game for readers unfamiliar with the genre or video games in general.
Done
This sentence is grammatically incorrect: (Set in a fictional medieval world, players control a monarch who the player must help rule for as long as possible.) It is saying that the players are set in a fictional medieval world.
Reworded
I think it would be worthwhile to link petition (in the lead and in the article). It may seem obvious to most readers, but I think it would be helpful to provide a link for readers who are either less familiar with this concept or would like to read more about it.
Done
I would avoid the repetition of "the player" in this sentence, (To win the game, the player must break a curse created by the Devil, who visits the player across several reigns.), if possible.
IsDisasterpeace notable enough to be mentioned in the lead? It does come off a bit random as there does not seem to be anything else to say other than that they did the soundtrack.
Not really, I can remove it if you would like.
The lead specifies that this has become a franchise. This is more of a clarification question, but do you think that a separate article about the franchise as a whole is a possibility?
Potentially, I'm not sure how much material there is to work with but since there are 5+ games, splitting an article for the franchise is a possibility.
For the end of the lead, I would avoid ending a sentence with a year and beginning the following sentence with another year. Something about it seems off to me, but it could just be a matter of personal preference. I have the same concern with this when it happens later in the article.
Removed release year, the reader can go to the linked article if they would like to know.
Is there any more up-to-date coverage on how many copies this game has sold beyond the 2019 number?
Not to my knowledge, but I might do a quick check later.
For the "2 million copies" part in the lead and the article, shouldn't it be spelled out as "two" since it is a number lower than ten?
Done
I believe Reigns: Game of Thrones, the Romance of the Three Kingdoms-inspired version, and Reigns: Beyond should be discussed in the lead as it is a bit odd in my opinion to only spotlight one of the sequels.
I made a few more mentions. Does this look better, and is there anything you would change?
I would add WP:ALT text to the screenshot. I have some minor WP:SANDWICH issues here, but it is nothing major. I think the screenshot is necessary and helpful for readers, but I still wanted to let you know about this.
Done
For this sentence, (Various advisers represented by cards approach the player with petitions and questions.), I believe there should be commas around the phrase "represented by cards".
Done
I would explicitly say in the prose that moving the card to the right means accepting the suggestion and to the left means rejecting it as some readers may unfamiliar with this type of thing.
Some responses to the questions posed by the cards aren't just "accept or reject", so I just rephrased it that accepting or rejecting are example responses.
There appears to be something missing here, (To win the game, the player find a way). Is it meant to say "must find a way"?
Do we know why the King does not remember making a deal with the Devil for eternal power? The summary makes it seem like it's new information. Is it something the King already know and it is withheld from the player?
The king appears to be suffering from some limited extent of memory loss, so I'll mention that in the plot.
It may helpful to add more links. I only thought about this as only undead is linked in the plot summary.
I am not sure that "added" is the best word choice for this part, (and added that the writing of the cards was formatted), as this is the first time in the sentence that his opinion is being discussed.
The first instance of TouchArcade should be in italics.
Done
For this quote, ("A clever subversion of strategy and casual mobile play that makes you laugh, cry, and think"), the "A" should not be capitalized.
Done
I feel that parts of The Guardian review in the second paragraph would fit better in the first as it is more about Reigns as a strategy game.
Done
I would revise the third paragraph to add more variety in the sentences as they mostly read as (X critic says Y opinion) and it makes the prose less engaging as a result.
I split it up some. Does it read better, and is there anything you would change?
The article on Gamezebo does not use italics in its title, but I can add them if you think I should.
Gamezebo is italicized in the Wikipedia article and is also presented that way in the article (i.e. the Reception table and the citation). I should have been clearer in the my original comment, but I was specifically referring to how it is presented in the prose (i.e. "Gamezebo said that the game gave" and "Gamezebo said that that the game"). I hope that clarifies this point. Aoba47 (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Would it be relevant to briefly mention anything further about any of these other installments (i.e. critical reception, sales, etc.)? I am not sure how sequels and the like are handled for this kind of article.
I'm going to try something a little similar to Kingdom Rush which I also worked on. Basically I list each entry in the franchise, the platform where they were first released, the sales if applicable, and the critical reception they received on Metacritic. Does that work?
That would work for me. It covers the relevant information while also avoiding going into too much unnecessary detail. Aoba47 (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Game titles such as Reigns should be put in italics for the citation titles per MOS:CONFORMTITLE.
Formatted
I do not think the title for Citation 10 is correct.
It looks fine to me. What looks like it is missing?
Apologies for not being clearer. I should have linked the citation in question. It is this one (here), which is now Citation 11. When I open the link, the title seems to be just the game title while the citation uses something longer. It is nothing major, but I was curious about it. Aoba47 (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Certain citations have both the work/website and publisher (i.e. for Metacritic and The Guardian) while others do not. I would be consistent with one method or the other throughout each citation.
Removed publishers
I would be consistent about whether or not title case is used for the citation titles.
I changed all to title case.
Was there any scholarly or academic analysis of this game?
Not too much from a quick look. Maybe it would be something to include to take the article to FA (which I don't plan to at the moment), but most of the applicable sources are from news.
There are a few citations listed on the talk page that are not used in the article. Is there a reason for this?
Ref 1 on talk mostly has information that is redundant with the information already in the article, and the new material is more suitable for Reigns: Her Majesty. It's moreso about Nerial and the other developers rather than the game itself. Ref 2 had some information about launch that I'll try to integrate into the article shortly. Ref 3 has material regarding AdventureX that I'll add as well. Ref 4 appears to be about another game the creator made and doesn't appear to have anything to do with Reigns.
I hope my comments are helpful. I have played Reigns: Game of Thrones a few years ago now and that honestly inspired me to pick this article up for review. Once everything has been addressed, I will go through the article a few more times to make sure that I have not missed anything. At that time, I will also do a more thorough examination of the citations. Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
No worries. Thank you for the message. There is absolutely no rush with this so take all the time that you need. I completely understand and have gone through burnout myself so I wish you the best of luck with it and hope you feel better overall soon. Aoba47 (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
No need to apologize. I am just glad that I can hopefully help out with this review. Everything looks good to me. Let me know when you have your edits to the "Legacy" section, and this should be ready for promotion after that. I hope that you can get plenty of good sleep. Aoba47 (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Apologies for adding another comment at the end. I noticed this while going through the citations, but I noticed there are a few instances where the same source has two identical citations, such as this one. It seems to be for the citations in the "Reception" table. There is no need to have two different citations for the same source. I did not notice anything else though. Thank you for your patience. Aoba47 (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
