Letterpress (video game)

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

This peer review discussion is closed.

Hello. I am listing this article for peer reviewing because I want to promote this article to GA status. It has come a long way, and this is in fact my first destubbed article on Wikipedia. I think the reception section needs some work; I generally have a hard time deciding what information should be put in.

Thanks, Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 06:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, I think I'll close this review now. It's evident that the article has significantly improved since this peer review. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 04:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Z1720

After skimming the article, I do not have any major concerns and I think this can be nominated at GAN. Some optional thoughts:

• Y Use IA Bot to archive the weblinks.
• Y The lede could potentially be expanded, perhaps to two paragraphs.
• Y "Less than a month after the game's release, an automated program known as Cheaterpress was developed and released. The app examines players' tiles on the board and outputs a list of possible words." This sentence should make it more clear that this was created to cheat in this app.

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you have any concerns about how the images are positioned? I'm worried that it might look a little too cluttered. Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 05:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should avoid sandwiching text between images by either removing an image or adding more prose. Z1720 (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from VRXCES

Awesome work on getting this article from an ignoble stub to its current really impressive state. Just some opinions on style and content from me. These are absolutely nitpicking and I hope are read with the intent of just providing observations on things that stand out as not helping with the article's flow, but hope they're helpful, and not really that vital to being a good article:

• Y "lattermost" -> "latter" or "last" are more readable.
  • Edited.

• Y The "Previous games as shown" image and caption don't quite illustrate to me what the actual gameplay is in terms of how it's described in the gameplay section.
  • I took inspiration from Czar's draft and used whatever material I could find there to expand the article.
    • I'm now planning to add a different image. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 07:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      •  Done TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 23:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Y "With his wife...the rules of Letterpress gradually evolved" seems like an odd lead to summarise the development section given it's not really clear how significant Brichter's wife's role was in development. The sentence is also not self-explanatory as to what or how the game evolved.
  • Rephrased.

• Y The text could benefit from some concision. For instance, the "While he and his wife were out for dinner, waiting for a table" point is sort of fluff. It could easily be shortened to remark that "Brichter and his wife were inspired to develop a multiplayer word game after playing the Zach Gage iOS game Spelltower together".
  • Fixed. Now looking for other flaws.
    • Y Should be all good now.

• Y The phrase "avoided using screenshots of his game with tacky catchphrases" is an awkward focus to lead in the release section given it's not informative about the game's marketing and is largely based on the developer's opinion.
  • Removed opinion and rephrased.

• Y I'd personally keep the approach to attribution of reviewer quotations consistent in the reception section. For instance, spelling out the three different reviewers and publications for the point of the single-player mode seems unnecessary where citations could compress it. The direct Larsen quote in the last paragraph clashes with the flow of how the other sentences describe the reviews.
  • So you're saying that I can't say X of Y all the time... Hm. Add variety...
    • I think it should be good now. TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Y The Cheaterpress section seems lumped on to the Awards section which doesn't feel right. Was the Cheaterpress thing notable? It feels a little like random minutiae.
  • Nope. Only one reliable source actually talks about Cheaterpress. It's a cool app, though.

Again, sorry! These are absolutely personal preferences.

ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, that's actually helpful. I need all the constructive criticism I can get. TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk) 06:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aoba47

I am not able to do a full review of the article. Apologies for that. I just wanted to drop in and add a few quick comments below:

• Y The lead should not have citations. All of this information should be included in the article and cited there, and the lead should be an overview of that. Citations in leads are typically restricted to either controversial information or quotes, and a typical video game article does not have citations in the lead.
• Y This was brought up earlier, but there are still WP:SANDWICH issues for File:Letterpress previous games screenshot.png and File:Loren Brichter.jpeg.
  • I'm unsure where to place the images. I've tried adjusting them, but nothing works.
    • Unfortunately, I do not think there is enough space for both images so I would prioritize the screenshot as it would be the most helpful for readers and remove Brichter's image as by contrast, it does not add much for readers. That being said, this is just a suggestion so feel free to think of other ideas or wait and see what other reviewers think. Aoba47 (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Removed Brichter; planning to add gameplay screenshot instead.
        •  Done Added gameplay screenshot. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 23:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Y This sentence is not clear to me: While developing the game, Brichter ultimately decided to implement strategy into the gameplay of Letterpress. I am guessing that it is intended to reflect this part from the article, (a feature that gave a player bonus points for surrounding tiles), but it doesn't fully match. The lead sounds like previous versions of this game had no strategy at all, while the article is about the developer implementing a feature to add in more strategy.
  • Rephrased as best as I could.
• Y As someone who has never played this game, I honestly do not find the game screenshot to be that helpful. I think it would be more beneficial to have a screenshot of the actual gameplay in progress, such as the first image in this review. I am not sure having a screenshot of the menu is the best way to illustrate the actual gameplay to readers, particularly unfamiliar ones.
  • I have the game on my phone, so I'll take a screenshot of it and upload that to Wikipedia.
    • Thank you. That sounds like a good plan to me. Aoba47 (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Y Why is Words with Friends presented in a "See also" section?
  • Letterpress and Words with Friends are both multiplayer word games. I'll remove it anyway. Changed my mind; the games are similar enough, so I'll add the game back in.
    • It is up to you. It is just felt like a random inclusion to me. Aoba47 (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Just to be clear, putting it back in is fine by me. It is likely just a matter of personal preference. Aoba47 (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Y Letterpress should be put in italics in the citation titles, such as Citation 1, per WP:CONFORMTITLE.
  • Italicized.
• Y Why is Google Play not linked in Citation 5? I have the same question for Apple in Citation 10? I am guessing that you are only linking the work/publisher in the first citation they appear so that's why Polygon is only linked in Citation 6 and not in Citation 7?
  • Linked.

I hope these comments are helpful, and apologies again for not being able to do a full review. Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]