Talk:Dota 2/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Andonic (talk · contribs) 02:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Method and contact
I haven't reviewed in a very very long time, so please bear with me since I may need to reacquaint myself with some aspects of the process. If anyone has any questions or needs clarification on something, I am available via e-mail, reddit message, as well as on Steam, and of course here on Wikipedia through my talk page. I will try to be as clear and direct as I can be, and am happy to work with you to improve the article according to your vision, so if you have any suggestions for me I will try my best to take them to heart.

I already gave the article a careful read, and though it's in pretty good shape, there's also a lot of room for improvement. Please forgive me if I'm ever overly critical; my hope is that after this GAN you guys will have a fairly easy road to FAC. My only request for now is that anyone who will be actively participating in the GAN process please sign below; I'll feel more comfortable knowing who you guys are. =)

Tomorrow I'll probably read through the article again and copyedit as I do, and then later in the weekend make some preliminary comments about the more long-term changes that need to be made. It would be a pleasure to help out with the work directly, but if you prefer that I take a more observational role, that's fine too. We can play it by ear as we go. Cheers, · Andonic  contact 02:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Participants

 * · Andonic  contact
 * D arth B otto talk•cont 17:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC) (Nominator/Responder)
 * Samwalton9 (talk)

Review
Feel free to add your own bullet points to mark issues as addressed, or ask for clarification if I haven't been clear.


 * Introduction
 * Paragraph 1:
 * ✅ Saying the game was released on July 9 is a bit misleading, given how accessible the beta was (i.e. the vast majority of active players were already playing prior to the formal release). Might warrant a mention that the game was in a nearly 2 year long closed beta prior to its official release.
 * Paragraph 2:
 * ✅ "session-based" is probably confusing to people who aren't already familiar with the game. There's a few ways to rephrase that, ultimately I think "match" already implies that each game played is discrete, the primary thing to clarify is that no bonuses or upgrades are carried over from one game to the next.
 * ✅ "consists" is improperly used.
 * suggestion: Each match of Dota 2 involves two teams, each containing five players and occupying a fortified stronghold at either end of the map. Victory is achieved by destroying the enemy's Ancient, which is invulnerable until certain objectives are achieved.
 * ✅ "and focuses on improving its abilities, acquiring items, and fighting against the other team": Improving abilities can be equated to "leveling up," which might be a better way of phrasing that. As for "fighting against...", that's more the method by which the other goals are accomplished, so that could be phrased to differentiate that.
 * I'm sure you've already read it, but I'd recommend taking a look at how DotA's introduction lays out the core details, and maybe modeling this intro after that one.
 * Paragraph 3
 * ✅ "Development," "lead developer," and "lead designer" are moderately redundant to each other. Also, is IceFrog not still lead developer, in a sense? I'm not exactly sure what his role is, but if he's still effectively in charge, unless Valve has explicitly given him a new title, it might not be necessary to give his role in each game differently.'
 * I cut "lead" from "developer", since he is the sole developer of DotA. But to answer your inquiry, he is still the developer of the original and is considered the designer of Dota 2, although he does not have full creative control. D arth B otto talk•cont 19:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ It should be safe to cut out the mention that the game runs on Source from the introduction--the infobox already lists it as being a Source engine game, you can save more in-depth information for the Development section.
 * ✅ "one of the most successfully delivered MOBA games" is rather poorly phrased, for a few reasons. 1. There's very few critically successful MOBA games, so in and of itself that doesn't mean much; 2. successful delivery isn't really something that's often lauded (so even though it was a fact praised about Dota, it's best to leave that for the Reception section, and in the intro just say it was well received).
 * ✅ If someone could double check the citation I added at the end of the last sentence and add any additional relevant information, I'd be much obliged.


 * Gameplay
 * General:
 * ✅ Given its nature as a multiplayer game, it could be useful to briefly describe how matchmaking works, mention that even though there's only one map, there's a number of game modes with differing tactical possibilities, or something along those lines.
 * I'm concerned about the amount of WP:Jargon in this section. The prose is well written and the terms are mostly explained, but there's no less than 8 words in quotes here. This should probably be cut down to 2-3. For example, instead of "Featured across the map are units referred to as "neutrals", which are not aligned to either faction and are primarily located in the forests", try: "Primarily in the forest areas of the map, there are neutral units which are not aligned to either faction". Forbes72 (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Paragraph 1:
 * I copyedited the first paragraph and changed a few things, might be good to review my changes to make sure I didn't muddle anything.
 * ✅ I think the information in the last sentence could be incorporated into the rest of the paragraph, it feels a little bit like it's hanging on the end restating things that were already explained to a reasonable degree; that might just be bias on my part since I'm familiar with the game--but nevertheless it should be restated, not quite sure how.
 * Paragraph 2:
 * ✅ This one was pretty rough, gave it a copyedit but it still needs some work. It's hard to explain a game as complex as Dota in one paragraph, so the ideal solution might be to divide the information. The majority of paragraph 2 covered heroes, and it is fairly comprehensive. I moved the sentence that covers item slots to the last paragraph, and recommend that the sentence "The towers and and stronghold defenses are invulnerable to attacks...etc" be moved into the paragraph that covered towers/defenses (if not deleted--it's fairly specialized information, not sure it is necessary to cover that).
 * Paragraph 3:
 * Instead of launching straight into an explanation of gold, I recommend describing the various stages and processes of the game (i.e. explain laning, ganking, pushing, supporting). Once distinctions between classes of heroes have been established, it is relatively easy to explain items, and from there you can cover how gold works.
 * ✅ "Killing creeps and neutrals grants..." This sentence again feels like very specialized information. That's the second time I've said that, so to clarify, I think it reads more like something that would be found in a guide rather than in a summary of the game.


 * Development
 * Concept:
 * Paragraph 1:
 * "Erik Johnson addressed the confusion..." Prior to this, there was no confusion (or name change) mentioned. Not only should this come earlier in the paragraph (seems to represent a philosophical direction Valve decided to take), but I'm not convinced that the public confusion is the best way to highlight the shift. Up to you guys though, there's a lot of ways to handle this one.
 * I examined the concept section, as well as the introduction paragraphs, and have initially concluded that giving the context of the Dota franchise with its capitalization and what-not in its current position is appropriate. Pertinent information required for the establishment of the project is given before the logistics is provided. Is this agreeable? D arth B otto talk•cont 07:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, fair enough. Still feels a little jarring to me though, I'll see if I can't play around with the wording later and maybe smooth it out. · Andonic  contact 16:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Paragraph 2:
 * ✅ "Said intellectual property...", the last sentence of the Concept section, isn't related to Dota 2 (or even DotA) much at all... I'm kind of on the fence as to whether it should be there or not. It does provide some closure to the nomenclature wars explanation, but the same could be accomplished differently without dedicating a sentence to it. Maybe inserting "now known as Heroes of the Storm" or something along those lines would work?
 * Design:
 * Paragraph 1:
 * ✅ "As the sequel to Defense of the Ancients" modifies "the development," see dangling modifier.
 * ✅ "the development was concentrated," should use a different verb, concentrate in the sense being used is pretty rare; it is quite a flexible verb, but a different one would be better here (maybe "focused").
 * ✅ "the aspects of its predecessor developed" There should be a more straightforward way of saying that Valve's intention was to preserve the spirit of the game and merely update its veneer.
 * ✅ "[factions] from Defense of the Ancients" Probably unnecessary to mention DotA since it's pretty clear that's the original that's being replaced.
 * ✅ "cornerstone features of the characters' alignment preserved" Does that refer to their lore alignment (i.e. Dire/Sentinel?). The sentence following that either clarifies this phrase (diminishing its utility), or refers to something else--in which case this one should be a bit clearer.
 * ✅ "Non-computed" Does that mean that results don't affect MMR? The sentence prior, as well as the "unranked practice matches" immediately following, seem to imply that, but I'm not sure that's the best way to explain that if it is the intended meaning.
 * Paragraph 2:
 * Nothing really wrong, a few transitions could be softened, but I'll rewrite that when I copyedit so don't worry about it.
 * Paragraph 3:
 * ✅ Might be good to explain what joinDOTA is briefly.
 * Merchandise:
 * Paragraph 1:
 * Pretty decent overview... I'm sure it can be improved since it reads a bit list-y, but not quite sure how yet. I'll come back to it later.
 * I might be biased since I'm very involved in the trading scene, but what would your thoughts be on moving this (and the summary of cosmetics in the Release section) to a separate section explaining the free how and why the free-to-play model works? It's a very unique F2P system, almost perfectly user-friendly in a market saturated by "evil" F2Ps, so it might merit a mention.
 * It might be a safe bet for you to implement the suggestion, since I'm not exactly sure how to go about that. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 02:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll give it a shot after finishing the article. · Andonic  contact 12:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Release:
 * Paragraph 1:
 * ✅ "in order to accommodate the full transfer of intellectual property developed for Defense of the Ancients." I'm not quite sure what that means so I left it alone for now--perhaps you have an idea? I've never heard of intellectual property being "developed."
 * ✅ "The new plan described by IceFrog" Was thinking of changing this to "IceFrog's new plan," which reads a bit better, but wanted to check that it was actually his plan rather than Valve's (i.e. did he announce Valve's plan, or modify it?). I can see that the blog post announcing the new plan was written by him... but maybe you have a better idea of how to process that.
 * There's a huge amount of time between "Simultaneously, Valve announced that the non-disclosure agreement for the beta was being lifted, allowing testers to discuss the game and their experiences publicly" and "Dota 2 transitioned into launch mode on June 21, 2013 and was officially released on July 9, 2013." I know this is the section covering the release... but that could be handled better I think. I would suggest adding a "Beta" section to Release to comment more extensively on the late beta's transition to full release. I think the only reason we have a Release section at all is because we had such a long beta and lead-up to full release, so it might be worth expounding on that (correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem to be typical in other game articles).
 * ✅ The last three or four sentences are all structured "On, x occurred," and it reads a little list-like.
 * Paragraph 2:
 * "Income for Dota 2 would, however, be maintained through the exclusively cosmeticDota Store, where players could purchase in-game items." I think it was Total Biscuit who said that the real/actual way Valve makes money from Dota is by having so many people sign up to Steam (and subsequently spend money on other games). Any chance that could be included? Not sure if TD is allowed on wiki.

Status?
What is the status of this review? It is over three weeks since the first parts of the review were posted here and a single response was made, both on October 1, and that's a long time. The bulk of the article has still to be reviewed, and the bulk of the review thus far has yet to receive a response here. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * All the issues Andonic presented have been addressed and he's acknowledged that on my talk page, but he has a busy schedule and warned me that it would take some time for him to get around to complete the review. I should probably ping him, just to be sure. D arth B otto talk•cont 05:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As DarthBotto said, most things have in fact been addressed (I think generally they're crossed out when finished? that might only be for FAC). I apologize for the slow pace of my review, unfortunately I have largely stopped contributing to Wikipedia, and have replaced it with other projects that require my attention. As such, it is difficult for me to find uninterrupted time to copyedit and review the article. · Andonic  contact 22:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose we could mark things as being done or crossed out, but I also see that there is an understanding from the parties that the recommendations that being made are nonetheless being rectified, so the necessity of marking everything isn't the most pertinent issue I'd say. D arth B otto talk•cont 08:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - How will you address ongoing updates? The Development section mentions post release updates such as LAN play and the coaching system.  But there have been more.  I think you should move post release updates to after the release section, or as a subsection of release, in order to preserve chronological order.  I would also move the free-to-play comments in the release section into the development section.  These comments, particularly about ongoing updates may not be relevant for good article standards, but will be if you're considering featured status. - hahnch e n 17:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Since everything's been addressed and the review has otherwise gone stale, I'm closing this and passing it. Wizardman 23:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll keep posting here as I make my way through things. Nice running into you again, Wizard. :) · Andonic  contact 14:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)