Talk:Minecraft/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jesse V. (talk · contribs) 20:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Status
''This section is supposed to be edited only by reviewer(s); please, leave your comments in the Discussion section below. The reviewer(s) will cross out issues when they have been sufficiently addressed.''

Discussion
Please refer to the issues in the table above by their numbers (eg. 1a1 for first issue with "prose" criterion).


 * 1b1. Fixed
 * 1b2. Fixed
 * 1b3. Started list collapsed
 * 1b4. Fixed
 * 2b4. Removed
 * Vacation9 (talk) 00:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That looks much better, thanks! As a suggestion, (this isn't a requirement) you could merge the History section with Commercial, though a bit of it could fit under Development. Just an idea, it could improve the prose a bit IMO. Sorry for not being more clear about the 1b2 issue; it was appropriate under a Notes section similar to how it was, but you could provide the quote and then add a citation at the end to Notch's blog. This would turn the external link into a citation, not the note itself. See WP:FNNR and WP:EXPLNOTE. &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 01:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the release information needs to be in its own section. It needs to be in the lead in some form. If you have to shorten it, and take the references out, that's fine, but that isn't material to make a history section out of, its lead info. Blake (Talk·Edits) 04:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the lead is supposed to summarize the information in the article, and typically doesn't provide new information all by itself. So the material should be in the body, but it can also be in the lead as well if it still in summary style and its presence doesn't detract from readability. See Portal (video game). &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 04:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I do think the history section warrants its own section. It is important and interesting information about the game history. I can add a short section in the lead summarizing it. Vacation9 (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The release information is summarized from the Development section, so a "history" section would be an unnecessary content fork. I have moved it back, and moved the references from it around so that fixes your problem. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Thanks! Vacation9 (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Vacation9 (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1b2. Done
 * 1b5. Fixed
 * 2a1. I'll work on it, easy to fix
 * 2a2. I'll work on this too. Also easy to fix.

Vacation9 (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 2a1. Fixed. Thanks for that script link!
 * 2a2. Fixed.


 * Comment. In addition to everything above, I don't really consider this article stable, because the game is still updated fairly frequently and so needs updating often. Also 3a -- I'm pretty sure there is more information from all the reviews and awards that aren't listed to cultural impact to significant number of let's plays. For a game with this much reception, the section is bare bones, to be honest. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Hellknowz -- There's a fair amount of instability that will be inherent to this article for the next ?year? or so. I have a bit of a vested interest in this article, and would love to see it become a GA, but it's just not there quite yet.
 * The third screenshot (the Nether) seems excessive to pass WP:NFCC. Also, the fair-use rationale is weak and/or inaccurate for all images except the album cover. On top of that it's standard to have the title card as the infobox image where possible per WP:VG. Two gameplay images (the infobox image, but moved, and the crafting menu) along with a title card and maybe the soundtrack cover are more than sufficient to instruct the reader and pass WP:NFCC.
 * Per WP:LEADCITE references should not be in the lead if the same information exists in the body. Per WP:LEAD anything that exists in the lead should also be in the body. Therefore there should be no references in the lead.
 * There are some redlink and underline links in the lead
 * There are numerous prose issues such as "2d" (instead of "2D"), using -- when &mdash; should be used, and others. There are instances of references coming before punctuation or nowhere near any. There is also at least one where there is a space between two references, and there may be others where there's a space between punctuation and a ref (dunno).
 * Whole paragraphs are unreferenced.
 * The Reception section is severely lacking considering the amount of media coverage this game has received. It should be easy to nearly double its length. Only one short paragraph goes into the specifics of reviews, the rest are of "top [x] award"-type statements.
 * It seems a bit on the side of WP:UNDUE to have an infobox and track listing for the soundtrack and have it dedicated to its own level 2 heading. It has only one line of prose. There is nothing on the soundtrack's reception or creation that warrants a dedicated section. It would seem the Merchandise section falls under this umbrella a bit, too. It could be expanded to include information on Xbox LIVE Avatar items, which are a form of digital merchandise.
 * Multiple sources are unreliable and/or need verification:
 * www.articstartup.com
 * Forums.tigsource.com
 * Boing Boing
 * snyapsesmp.com (an archived ref)
 * Planet Xbox 360
 * www.minecraftwiki.net
 * www.m00d.net (an archived ref)
 * I counted 24 primary references. Given the amount of media coverage these should (for the most part) be really easy to replace
 * Along with that there are instances either repeat (same ref twice) or two different refs source the same info. In these cases a lot of primary refs are backed up by a reliable source. The primary refs can simply be pulled in this case.
 * The date format may still be inconsistent. I ran a script to catch most of them, but there still may be more.
 * I have high hopes in the end for this article, but it seems to still need a lot of work before hitting the benchmark. The various contributors should be commended for what they've done so far, but I can't all the work needed being done in a reasonable amount of review time. Just my thoughts. --Teancum (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There are enough editors frequenting this page to make this happen, so its entirely possible. Nearly all of these are fair issues in this GAN which need to be resolved, except for your comment on the Reception section, which I agree with but I don't think it'd be appropriate to make as a requirement for GA class. You are welcome to copy these into the Status section above if you like, it may make it easier for the editors to address and comment on.
 * This article is stable because "it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." All articles need to be updated, but that doesn't make them unstable. It's still a good ways off until the 1.4 update anyway. &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 14:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Something just occurred to me. This article says nothing about Snapshots, the peek at new versions of the game. This is a very important aspect to cover.(Example of coverage:) I would include it right now, but I am not sure what section of the article it would best fit. They are released every week, so placing it in a certain location of the Development section could be confusing. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and included a section right after the Classic section. This article really needs more sources in the gameplay section. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It might belong better under Development. It seems a bit on the WP:OR side; you might want to phrase it more factually. Something like "On [date], Mojang began releasing periodic snapshots of the game. These snapshots serve as a alpha test and a preview of upcoming features."[reference][reference]. &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 19:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe i at least partially fixed 3b, can someone confirm? - Lord Aro (talk page) 22:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is much better. However, there are still a few citation tags, citation 12 is broken, and not all the citations have their fields filled out (70, 87, and 88 for example). Getting there though! &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 22:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The article still doesn't pass 1b (MOS). Just from a quick look I see incorrectly formatted titles, wrong dashes, stray whitespace, capitalization issues, overlinking, missing suitable links, etc. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've fixed a number of these using AWB and Advisor.js. I thought we resolved the overlinking. Could you be more specific? &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 14:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, take "Minecraft 4k" section, for example. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, that section has at least one WP:YOU violation, it doesn't follow the same standard as the other ports (mentioning the title yet again after the heading), has Beta capitalized, etc. It needs a good copy edit. --Teancum (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Y Done - I've cleaned up the section and added a ref from EDGE. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Minecraft 4k" was just the worst of the lot. There are other issues. "Minecraft" isn't italicized at places. Hunger is overlink. Terms like game mode aren't linked. Why are game modes and mob names being capitalized; those aren't proper nouns. Terms like "creeper" are not explained.
 * Recent summary mentions 1a only partly failed; but there is a serious copyedit required. I am not bothering mentioning individual things, because there are so many. For example, it talks about "the end" achievement, but that's the first and last place achievements are ever mentioned. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good call. I appreciate your assistance. Whenever a copyedit is needed, one effective strategy I like to use is to put each the sentences in a paragraph on a new line, and then start from the beginning and stitch them together one by one, carefully improving the prose as I go. &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 15:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've cleaned up the article a bit, but I really think this article should be written in a more sophisticated style. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)