Good evening! Been reading RPS for a few years.
A suggestion for articles, particularly those involving game updates, is that an editing standard be put in place for referencing to primary sources.
I love reading analyses of patch notes, updates, new DLC announcements, etc., from the slew of contributors here, but there does not seem to be a uniform standard as to whether to include referencing to primary sources. I know this is not at the top of many readers’ minds, but being able to compare the analysis to the actual text of patch notes is interesting for me and could raise reader-engagement with the article by providing direct hyperlinks to useful info.
An example includes:
Article from today of updates to SoT pets and revives only includes references to secondary sources (specifically other RPS articles).
If we take this one article, and the secondary references within it, of the 4 references to RPS articles, one has patch notes, one is just a directory of SoT articles/threads, and one is just a reference to an earlier article from last week (with no primary sources there either). There is a secondary reference to a Eurogamer article, but no reference to the official SoT announcement.
Yes we live in the information age, and the vast majority of your readers know how to google search these specific updates/announcements, but this is a common theme of major online media outlets.
Regardless, love the site and the take on many issues in gaming.
John
