Talk:Esports/GA1

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

Reviewer: DarthBotto (talk · contribs) 00:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead

 * The very intro sentence is incorrect, as electronic sports does not refer to individual competitions. Rather, it refers to the very essence of video games played to a competitive degree.
 * I changed it to Electronic sports (esports) is a term for sporting competition between people, especially professionals, who play video games against each other.--Wedderkop (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've reverted that. I understand why the current wording isn't exactly preferred, but I don't see how that new wording fixes the problem. Also, as I mentioned in the edit summary, calling it "sporting competition" could start up the whole "ARE VIDEO GAMES SPORTS?" debate again.  TheStickMan  [✆Talk] 15:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, reverting it back to the inaccurate state I mentioned isn't exactly helping the page, either. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 21:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I never acted like I was fixing things. I'm still trying to think up something.  TheStickMan  [✆Talk] 04:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Giving examples of three competitions is demeaning to the scene. I would suggest giving a broader analysis of the tournaments spectrum.
 * Listing out the three biggest video games at the moment is not necessary, as the second portion of the sentence states, it is subject to change. There should be a particular emphasis upon that dynamic and expand upon that.
 * Overall, the intro is decently written, but could be improved with both structure and relevancy of its content.

Overview

 * Discussing the recent surge in popularity and money belongs in the history section. In addition, it should probably utilize a reference newer than two years.
 * Moved to history and added another citation from more recently. Samwalton9 (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The controversial tone of referring to them as "sports" shouldn't be a leading attribute. I'd put that at the tail end of this section.
 * Agreed. I've moved this to the end for now and will add a better lead paragraph to this section at some point. Samwalton9 (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It is prudent to explain the distinction that the fighting game genre maintains and expand upon that, perhaps in another paragraph altogether.
 * As a matter of fact, electronic sports are not confined to developed countries, as most third-world nations feature competitive video game tournaments, even for titles like Dota 2.
 * I changed it to "have their roots in". As third-wold nations develop and access to video games, internet, computer etc. gets cheaper there are now video game tournaments in every part of the world. But the origins of electronic sports can only be found in developed countries due to infrastructure-related conditions. --Wedderkop (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There should be expansion to the concept that recognition of esports outside of Korea has come to fruition at a slower pace.

History

 * "Video games have been played competitively since their inception with the earliest competitions simply being players attempting to beat each other's high scores." I would find a better and more professional way to write this, so it may be encyclopedic and sound in delivery.
 * I have cut the sentence entirely. It is is slightly misleading anyway: Spacewar! is a two player game, where players try to shoot each other, not compete for a high score. The high score stuff was for later competitions, I think. Forbes72 (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The mention of the tournament at Stanford is very well written. Good job.
 * Combining the third and fourth paragraphs of the first history section may be prudent.
 * "During this period"... for sections like this, it is best to introduce the time frame.
 * Apparently the manual of style says no apostrophes in date ranges. I've fixed that as well. Forbes72 (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussing Netrek with a synopsis ranging into two sentences seems rather excessive- cut it down.
 * This had an entire section in an older revision of the page. I cut it then, and now I cut it again. I usually try to err on the side of leaving too much in. Let me know if it is still too much. Forbes72 (talk) 06:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There should be expansion about the television shows about electronic sports with references, rather than briefly mentioning them in passing.
 * Expanded a little. Samwalton9 (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This history section goes beyond 2009, so either the last subsection should encapsulate the present, or else it should be split.
 * Renamed to 2000 onwards, for now at least.


 * Is it really necessary to discuss the individual achievement of Kavitha Yalavarthi?
 * No, it is not. Forbes72 (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Mentioning how esports coverage is sporadic is not really digressed upon.
 * "digress" means "To turn aside, especially from the main subject in writing or speaking" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/digress, which we want to avoid. Are you asking for more details? Forbes72 (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Mmm, typo on my part. I thought I was writing "expand". Odd that I kept on doing that when I wrote this. Weird what you'll find when you'll actually read what you've written, right? :P D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 12:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The last paragraph of the history section is presented like an incomplete list and seems disjointed. As a section on history, there should be a degree of flow to it.
 * "The G4 television channel originally covered video games exclusively, but has since broadened its focus significantly". How so and where is its context to esports?
 * There should be a mention of the explosive expansion of esports with titles like League of Legends and Dota 2 putting the money into the millions. In this case, LoL with its viewership and Dota 2 with its record for prize money.

Titles

 * While I commend this page's contributors for creating a separate page for Electronic sports titles by genre, there seems to have been a double-edged sword. There should be two to three paragraphs explaining the kinds of games, the genres, how the games have changed since the inception of esports and a scope beyond South Korean cyber cafes.
 * Once again, Dota 2, League of Legends and StarCraft II are given emphasis as the most popular titles.

Game design

 * The intro paragraph seems rather fluffy. It explains that certain video games have been designed for competitive play, rather than the player's experience. I would say this is a misnomer, considering that it's implying that the player's experience is not a priority.
 * Mentioning Dota 2, League of Legends and StarCraft II once again serves as fluff. The intro paragraph really has only one sentence with substance.
 * There should be an expansion of the spectator feature, with typical design features included. Simply saying that there are features and that Dota 2, League of Legends and StarCraft II exist will not suffice.
 * I have edited the spectator feature, adding in the fact that it's delayed in most games. I've also removed mention of which games have it.TsukiKanade (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I would say the online section is well-written... the flip side is... there are not references.
 * Likewise, the first paragraph about LAN is well-written, but lacking any references.
 * The second paragraph features the repeat failure of going into Dota 2, League of Legends and StarCraft II, without have any other substance. There are many other games that have featured LAN connectivity.
 * The reference featuring GosuGamers should be replaced, as that reference is not yet considered reliable. Perhaps whatever it was referencing itself?
 * Overall, I would say this section should be reworked with my critiques and re-oganized for 1. Online, 2. LAN, 3. Spectator mode.

Teams and Associations

 * "Associations" should not be capitalized.
 * The overview paragraph is presented in an awkward list form that does not expand upon the substance of teams or associations. There should be less emphasis upon examples and more upon what is commonplace for a team or association.
 * Due to the title of the subsection for ethics, there should be more emphasis upon what is considered ethical and legal, rather than mere etiquette. Contracts and what-not should be a central position.
 * Perhaps a mention of the establishment of legal precedents by Andreas Thorstensson of SK Gaming?
 * "There have been serious violations of the rules." Rather vapid and broad.
 * The rest of the final paragraph pretty much only lists out a couple ethical violations, rather than giving context, with few examples.

Media coverage

 * The About page for ESFI World is not only placed in a non-ideal location, but it's not an encyclopedic reference.
 * There are examples given about news organizations, but I would suggest giving some context to more mainstream efforts from bigger organizations, such as onGamers, on behalf of CBS Interactive.
 * There should be a more expansive synopsis of being a caster.
 * Mentioning Stemkoski and Plott is probably not necessary.
 * The overview is sparse with references, with the only one included hardly said to be reliable at all.
 * I would recommend moving the StarCraft match image to the television subsection and instead featuring this image file as an example for coverage and scope.
 * In the very least, that image should be featured somewhere.
 * The live streaming and television sections are well written and properly sourced.

Closing comments

 * Reduce the excessive mentions pertaining exclusively to Dota 2, League of Legends and StarCraft II.
 * Choose whether the abbreviation is "esports", "eSports" or "e-sports" and stick with it.
 * I've chosen "esports". Granted, "eSports" is probably a bit more popular, but esports is also used, and is much easier to manage.(e.g. capitalization of eSports) Forbes72 (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be what you decide on, but what it actually is known to be and how a professional organization would refer to it as if provided. I believe that eSports is the correct capitalization as of this time I do not have any way to prove it but that is research that is needed to help keep the article on track to getting to become a good article. RazerBandit (talk) 02:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Format and link references properly, as most are reliable and feasible.
 * Emphasize structure and flow.
 * Allow the page to stabilize, as it as undergone a massive degree of restructuring.
 * This page has come a long way. Give it some more time and it should be ready for Good Article status.

Thanks for the feedback! There is a lot of good points here, I will begin to work through them.Forbes72 (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There's a lot of points to address here, and I'm not sure I can get to them all in a timely manner. I'll probably continue to work on this sporadically, but maybe you should close this as "failed GA" for now.


 * One point of particular difficulty is breadth of genres here. I've personally found it challenging to find good sources on anything outside of League, Starcraft and Dota. (plenty of first party sources, but very little third party) I can find at least some information from published game reviews, but do you have suggestions for more sources, or a better way to approach this? Forbes72 (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Game reviews from reliable sources suffice as feasible references. The mentions of Dota 2, StarCraft II and League of Legends seem redundant and unnecessary for the most part, so look for references that focus on the essence of the sections, rather than examples. There doesn't seem to have been any work on this article for some time, so I must give a warning that if there continues to be a lack of improvement, I'll have no choice but to fail this nomination. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 23:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

So, is this going to be closed soon? Tezero (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It will, but I don't think it'll be a pass at this point. My suggested changes have only been applied in minor proportion and the other changes have been reverted, indicating an unstable page. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 18:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, since the nominator hasn't touched this page since January 5th, I think you should close this review as fail. If they aren't going to work on this, what's the point keeping this open? GamerPro64  17:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Verdict
Due to an apparent lack of interest in seeing the quality of this article improving and the reversions back to prior, inferior content, I have no choice but to fail this GAN. I know this is unfortunate, but I really don't have a choice in the matter. If the community wants to take this more seriously at a later date and incorporate my suggestions in a second GAN, I would support that. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 19:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to start going through this list in an effort to get the article up to standards. Will be tagging stuff here as I go. Samwalton9 (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)