Talk:StarCraft/GA1

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

Well, this should be fun. 2nd review. I'll start GA process things in about, how about in 15 hours. Sound fair? Good. Pie is good  (Apple is the best)  01:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments I am not going to review it, but I have two comments:
 * first paragraph in the "Games" section has no references;
 * the cultural impact should be expanded; I believe this is one of the more influential games in history, and talking only about critical reviews is not enough. TV stations in SKorea were established only for this game (I believe they were the first tv stations dedicated to a single game). Also, th professional competitions should have a few sentences. Nergaal (talk) 06:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Image check
 * Needs source - Image:Insurrection box art (StarCraft).jpg, Image:Retribution box art (StarCraft).jpg, Image:StarCraft Archive cover.jpg

Otherwise pretty good.
 * Comments
 * 26th century in the lead shouldn't be super scripted.
 * Do you mind making ...released; these are authorized expansion packs to the original which focus on other characters and settings based at the same time as the main storyline. into a sentence without the semi colon
 * Ref 73b is over 3 years old. Do you mind finding a newer source?

That's all for now. Don't worry, I always start small and work my way up. Pie is good  (Apple is the best)  21:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Those images don't need a specific source; the important thing to note is that they are the cover art for the games' boxes. I think the semicolon is appropriate and useful in this case; I have replaced the reference with one from April 2008. Gary King ( talk ) 21:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Be sure to use non-breaking spaces throughout, such as 10 million in the lead, or 800 percent in the Reception and cultural impact section. I think there are more, but I'm not sure
 * I agree with Nergaal, as according to this, the South Korean government has endorsed the game.(You might want to get a better source, though)
 * I think the lead should have one more paragraph, as the article has about 22,000 characters. Perhaps a section about the games itself could be created, and a reception paragraph after
 * Do you mind adding a cite for Using the Warcraft II game engine as a base... Thanks
 * The pack began development shortly... The pack seems rather informal. Try using the team, or development team

Pie is good  (Apple is the best)  22:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * All done. The reference you gave doesn't mention the government; it mentions the Korean television stations dedicated to the game, which the article already mentions. I've added a paragraph about the series' development to the lead. Gary King ( talk ) 03:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does. Try Crtl+Fing The South Korean government visited E3 many years ago and decided that they needed to bring their nation into the modern era. They chose StarCraft as the game which they would endorse.
 * Ah; I thought you were talking about the actual story on the page rather than a comment. Gary King ( talk ) 16:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've redone the video game box art images so there's a collective photo of all currently released video games, and I've updated the fair use rationale on the novel image. All fair use rationales should now check out. -- Sabre (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The covers of StarCraft, Insurrection, Retribution and Brood War Do you mind stating something like (counterclockwise from the top)? Thanks.
 * Something not related to article When I give out a GA star, who should I give it to? You or Sabre?
 * Be consistent in American/British spelling. Some conflicts I noticed include behavior/behaviour, -ization/-isation. Choose one or the other.
 * Try using an info box like Infobox Media franchises

Pie is good  (Apple is the best)  15:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * All done. I didn't use the infobox because it's new (two weeks old; it's only used in two articles) and still has a few kinks to work out. There is no GA star to give out; you give the star to the article. Gary King ( talk ) 16:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with the use of the infobox in the article. As said, it's not been fully worked out, and could very well get rather messy with the length of stuff to put into it, especially in consideration that none of the novels have articles, but instead link here. Its also not an essential, see Halo (series) and Age of Empires, a GA and a FA, neither of which use any infoboxes. -- Sabre (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Roger. I was just taking suggestions from the Peer review automated script. -- Pie is good  (Apple is the best)  20:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What else needs to be done? Gary King ( talk ) 22:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Where exactly in Ref 14 state that it includes the new mission?
 * FYI
 * Although developed and published by Aztech New Media it is authorized... Do you mind adding a comma after Aztech New Media?
 * The second novel, entitled StarCraft: Liberty's Crusade, serves as an adaptation of the first campaign of StarCraft, focusing on a journalist following a number of the key Terran characters in the series. Written by Jeff Grubb,[49] it was the first StarCraft novel published in paperback, in March 2001. Move the March 2001 somewhere else, please.
 * Ref 61 doesn't say that ToyCom made the toys.
 * What makes http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/113938 a reliable source?

Man. The reason I haven't been posting concerns, is mainly because I couldn't find any concerns. You two are excellent article writers, by the way. I feel tired looking 2 hours for 6 concerns.(Which would be the concerns above) I would pass it here and now, but address these concerns first. -- Pie is good  (Apple is the best)  23:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * StarCraft: Revelations was authored by Chris Metzen and Sam Moore, two Blizzard employees, and was featured on the cover of the magazine with art by Blizzard's art director Samwise Didier. Cite please?
 * Blizzard Entertainment also licensed Wizards of the Coast to produce an Alternity based game entitled StarCraft Adventures. Cite?
 * In the Adaptions and Reception and cultural impact, don`t refer to the authorized expansions as being authorized expansions. Just call them expansions, as its clear that they mean the other one.

-- Pie is good  (Apple is the best)  23:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've addressed all nine concerns. http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/113938 has been replaced, the ToyCom statement has been backed up with another ref, the information on Revelations is in an already used reference which has been added to the end of the sentence. The N64 secret mission's been cited to an interview on a related subject, but it does clearly mention the existance and canon of an N64 secret mission - not ideal, but should be sufficient. The reference for the Alternity game isn't brilliant, but it serves the purpose of showing that an Alternity game exists—references for that are rather hard to come by, only other two I found was a review in Russian and its Amazon page. -- Sabre (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm in a position to pass it, but I've put it for 2nd opinion so that someone else can have a brief look at it. If no one comes in a couple of days, I'd be happy to pass. Pie is good   (Apple is the best)  22:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion
Being interested in the games, and seeing that this needed a second opinion, I thought I'd offer a hand.After just giving the lead a quick sweep I noticed a few things that need to be addressed. Hopefully the problems don't represent the shape of the entire article. - Yohhans talk 20:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * the adaptable and mobile Terrans, the insectoid Zerg, and the enigmatic Protoss - I feel like a lot of this is POV. How are Terrans more adaptable than the other two species? Sure, their buildings can have expansions on them, but I don't know that this qualifies them as more adaptable. Also, from this sentence we have no idea that the Terrans are human, nor do we know what the Protoss are except that they have a mysterious quality to them.
 * It mentions that the galaxy in question is the Milky Way. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we are ever told what galaxy this all takes place in. The blizzard website definitely doesn't mention the Milky Way. I'm not sure about the manuals/books though as I am at school and don't have access to these. If it is the Milky Way, please cite it (not necessary in the lead, but in the History section).
 * With the first video game, StarCraft, released in 1998, the series has grown to include a number of other games as well as eight novelizations, two Amazing Stories articles, a board game, and other licensed merchandise such as collectable statues and toys. - Snake sentence. Chop it up. Also, the first part is in passive voice. "Collectible" is spelled wrong.
 * Just a comment. Does this look like the semicolon after Brood War is just a comma to anyone else: "expansion pack, Brood War; the game's"? Because that's what it looks like to me and it made this sentence very confusing. It wasn't until I read it in a monospaced font that I understood the sentence.
 * the Xel'Naga genetically engineer the Protoss → the Xel'Naga genetically engineered the Protoss - Please do a general sweep for minor prose issues like this.
 * Check for correct placement of linking. For example, in the body Blizzard Entertainment is linked in Spin-off titles when it should be linked at its first appearance in the Main series section.
 * The first half of the paragraph talking about SC: Ghost needs citing. As it stands, ref 35 only covers the statement about the title being "indefinitely postponed".
 * I have to head off to class now, but I will add more later. - Yohhans talk 20:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Terrans is a common science fiction term for humans. Going into that detail is what the wikilink is for, I don't really see the need to clog up the introduction with describing the species any further than that. Besides, its fairly obvious when reading the story paragraph that that the Terrans are humans. "Engimatic" is a term used often in the marketing of the series, for instance, on the back of the novels. As it is used in official merchandise to describe the Protoss, it seemed ideal to use in a similar context here. The same goes for the adaptable Terrans, this isn't so much a reference to the gameplay style, but official sources, particularly the game manual, tend to make a big deal of the Terrans been adaptable, flexible, masters of survival, etc etc. This isn't POV, it's just using the same word from the primary sources to describe the races in those sources. A reference shouldn't be required, but I can replace "enigmatic" with the less mysterious and wikilinked "psionic" if you want.
 * Although never referred to by the name Milky Way, its made fairly clear throughout the manual of StarCraft that the game takes place in the same galaxy as Earth. Merely giving it it's proper scientific name for the benefit of a wikilink can't really be taken as original research. It shouldn't require a reference.
 * Done.
 * Looks ok to me, I didn't see any problems when reading it.
 * WP:WAF tells us to write about fiction in the present tense, rather than the past tense, so "genetically engineer" is the correct presentation.
 * Done.
 * Done. -- Sabre (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Aw, why did Yohhans say I will add more later. I would've passed it, but I'll let him take as long as he wants(hopefully not longer then me) Pie is good   (Apple is the best)  01:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just really want the article to be worthy of that little green icon. :) The issues I have are small and can easily be fixed. - Yohhans talk 03:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Last comments:
 * The Overmind is not mentioned until the second paragraph of the Story section. As it is such an integral part of the story, I think it should be mentioned earlier.
 * There's really no convienient place to insert further backstory for a single character. Again, its the role of the wikilink to expand on the character's role. -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * During the assault on the capital, Arcturus Mengsk abandons his psychic second-in-command, Sarah Kerrigan to the Zerg, who capture and infest her, creating their "greatest agent". - "greatest agent" needs to be attributed to a source.
 * Removed, I really want to keep references in that section confined to the SC2 summaries of the two games. -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Zerg are then attacked on their primary hive cluster by Protoss forces commanded by Tassadar and the dark templar Zeratul, who through assassinating a Zerg cerebrate inadvertently allow the Overmind, the Zerg's supreme leader, access to the location of the Protoss homeworld Aiur. - Cumbersome sentence. Needs to be broken up.
 * ✅ -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In Brood War, the Protoss led by Zeratul and Artanis are trying to recover from the death of the Overmind and begin to evacuate their surviving population to the dark templar homeworld under a fragile alliance between the two untrusting branches of the Protoss. - Also a rather cumbersome sentence. Additionally, it would be good if you could name the dark templar homeworld.
 * ✅ -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * On the dark templar homeworld, they are misled by Kerrigan - You have not yet mentioned that Zeratul formed a reluctant alliance with Kerrigan. Do that before talking about Kerrigan's deception.
 * That's intentionally left out due to the need to keep the plot section in this article ultra concise. The articles for Brood War and Kerrigan expand on that relation, but all that is needed here is the fact that she misleads them. -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. So long as it was intentional. - Yohhans talk 13:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * that a new Overmind is in maturation. - Awkward phrasing
 * Sorry, I really can't see what's wrong with that bit of wording. Perhaps you can reword it to something you think is suitable, as its difficult to reword something when you can't see what's wrong with it. -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with it. It's perfectly fine wording. I guess it just reads funny to me since I never see that phrasing. I would have written it as, "On the dark templar homeworld, they are misled by Kerrigan into attacking the Zerg in order to advance Kerrigan's quest to secure power. This deception comes after she reveals that a new Overmind is beginning to mature." - Yohhans talk 13:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅, reworded accordingly. -- Sabre (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, you don't have to reword verbatim, but thanks for taking my suggestion into account. - Yohhans talk 13:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * After defeating a retaliatory attack by the Protoss, Dominion and the UED which results in the destruction of the UED fleet, Kerrigan, supported by her Zerg broods, becomes the dominant power in the sector. - Confusing sentence. Needs rewording. The main problem is the clause "which results in the destruction of the UED fleet". It disrupts the flow of the sentence.
 * ✅ -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good. - Yohhans talk 13:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * with the sequel still in development. - Sequel? I assume you mean Starcraft II, except you haven't mentioned it yet except in the lead. The lead is there to summarize the article, not be a building block from which the rest of the article can draw information.
 * The sequel is mentioned in the lead, and then again in the introduction to the games section. Both paragraphs aim to summarise the content that follows it, and StarCraft II is elaborated on in the games section. I can't see what you're getting at here. -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned there, but not by name. That's all I was getting at. Anyway, I think it's easy enough to assume that StarCraft II is meant here. Don't worry about this comment. - Yohhans talk 13:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Try not to overlink. Real-time strategy game, Milky Way, cerebrate and cut scene were all linked multiple times (not including the lead). Please go through and fix the rest.
 * ✅, I think. -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It was later compiled with StarCraft and ported to the Nintendo 64 as StarCraft 64. The port was released on 13 June 2000 in the United States. - Just mentioned this in the previous paragraph. While not guaranteed, it is likely that your readers have a memory better than a goldfish.
 * ✅ -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The expansion's story continues only days in the wake of the conclusion of the original game, following the moves of the Protoss to ensure the continued survival of their species, the rise to power of the infested Sarah Kerrigan over the Zerg and introducing a new threat to the sector of the galaxy with the intervention of the previously silent witness of the Earth government. - Long sentence is long.
 * It doesn't seem to long to me, or any grammar checks I put it through. It's far easier to summarise the game's story in three quick points like that than to break it up and have to increase the amount of words used. -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Inserting a few words to increase understanding is never a bad thing. Read it as is, and then read a chopped up version: "The expansion's story continues only days after the conclusion of the original game. It starts with the Protoss' struggle to ensure the survival of their species and continues with the intervention of the UED into local Terran affairs. The livelihood of both the Protoss and the previously silent Earth government is then threatened by the ever-increasing power of Sarah Kerrigan and her Zerg brood." I don't know, I guess it's just me (It does make sense that you would be biased to your own writing), but the latter flows better to me. - Yohhans talk 13:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅, reworded. -- Sabre (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * silent witness of the Earth government - Might be better to just say the UED since you have already mentioned them. Also, get rid of the link to the UED.
 * ✅ -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition, the expansion introduces a total of seven new units with different functions and abilities, improved artificial intelligence behavior, new graphical tilesets for terrain and improved scripting tools to the game's level editor to facilitate cut scenes using the in-game engine. - Long list-y sentence. Chop it up. Something like, "In addition, the expansion introduces new features and improvements. A total of seven new units with different functions and abilities are included, the artificial intelligence behavior was modified, new graphical tilesets for terrain were added and the game's level editor received improved scripting tools to facilitate cut scenes."
 * ✅ -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The expansion received critical praise - is the "critical" necessary?
 * Yes, as there are many different sources from which praise can come. It is necessary to put "critical" to show that its praise from critics, not other developers, fans, politicians, etc etc. -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. I guess my mind was stuck on critic mode. Good catch. - Yohhans talk 13:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Uhmm... Maybe I'm missing something here, but how is this: http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/insurrectioncampaignsfs/players.html a source for "and as a result of its lack of success, it is not widely available"
 * ✅ -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * during the second episode of StarCraft - second episode? .... You mean Brood War? Needs rewording I think.
 * ✅ -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As with its predecessor, Insurrection, Retribution does - I think it's safe to assume that we know the predecessor is Insurrection.
 * ✅ -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * and consortium of multiplayer levels. - consortium? I think you may be looking for a different word here. How about, "and an abundance of multiplayer levels."
 * ✅ -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As with its predecessor, Insurrection, Retribution does not include .... As with Insurrection, Retribution is not widely available, and Blizzard - I don't suppose we could be more inventive with our sentence structure?
 * ✅ -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * suspicion began to grow that Blizzard would cancel the game. - Suspicion from whom?
 * ✅, referenced to a media award -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * following the intrigue around the type of character in the original StarCraft. - Needs rewording. Also, who was intrigued? I know I was always more interested in Zerglings and Firebats. Ghosts were just the things you had to train so you could set off nukes. Granted, this is my opinion, but that's kind of the point....
 * ✅ -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * StarCraft's success also prompted third-party - "prompted" sends the wrong message. I think "inspired" would work better here.
 * ✅ -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "level editing software" should be linked further up in the article rather than here.
 * Linked the further up one, but the level editor is a key part of the case there, I believe that one should remain wikilinked. -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Many over-linking issues in the Development and Adaptations sections.
 * ✅ Dealt with a few, but as names are used in difference context to previously I'd rather keep the other developer names wikilinked. -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It has been stated that development on the game began in 2003, shortly after Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne was released. - By whom? Also, citation needed.
 * ✅ -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * focusing on a journalist following a number of the key Terran characters in the series. - focusing ... following ...
 * ✅ -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The trilogy acts as a link between StarCraft and its sequel StarCraft II, with the first installment, - "with" is a poor linking word. I would suggest simply a full stop after Starcraft II, and start a new sentence with, "The first installment ..."
 * ✅ -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Two more upcoming novels have been announced: I, Mengsk by Graham McNeill and Spectres, which will be a sequel to DeCandido's Nova. - Citation?
 * ✅ -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Since then, StarCraft remains one of the most popular online games in the world. - "Since then" is redundant
 * ✅ -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * StarCraft was the best-selling PC game of 1998, selling over 1.5 million copies internationally. - Errr... a couple sentences back, it says that a total of 1.5 million copies were sold in 1998. Are you telling me that no copies were sold in the US? I find this hard to believe.
 * 1.5 million copies were sold in 1998 over the whole world. Last time I checked, the US was part of the world, so that figure includes US sales. I can't see any problems here. -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, the US is part of the world. But this sentence says that in 1998, over 1.5 million copies were sold internationally. As the game was released in the US, I read this sentence as, "In 1998, more than 1.5 million copies were sold in countries outside the United States." But a few sentences previous, it says that 1.5 million were sold "worldwide" meaning the US AND all other countries. Either you mean to say in both places that 1.5 million copies were sold worldwide and are being redundant, or the information is wrong somewhere. - Yohhans talk 13:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I've just caught onto what you mean. It is repeated above, so I've removed the sentence in question. -- Sabre (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. Glad I'm not going crazy. :) - Yohhans talk 13:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * establishing a successful pro-gaming scene. - Might be good to link to professional gaming.
 * ✅ -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * popularizing the use of unique sides in real-time strategy games. - Unique sides... I have no idea what this means. Explain please?
 * ✅ -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Although the first two expansions were not - You've strictly been calling them "add-ons" throughout the article, why change now? Especially since I think Broodwar is the only official expansion.
 * ✅, expansion, add-on, means exactly the same. Brood War may be the official expansion, but generically they're all expansions. -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * IGN stated that it was - I do believe we have lost track of what our antecedent is referring to. What is "it"?
 * ✅ -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That's all I have. The prose needs some good touching up before I would say it meets the requirement of "well written." Beyond that though, I'd say the article is in good shape. After these (numerous, but minor) issues have been addressed, I'd be happy to throw in my support for giving the article a GA certification. - Yohhans talk 03:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, done. Reasons provided in response to review points I disagree with, rest just marked as done. You'll forgive me if I say that I think that you two have been holding us to a standard somewhat higher than is actually required for GA; this has been the longest and most enduring GA I've dealt with. -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're probably right that that is the case. I suppose the problem is that I spend too much time lurking around FAC, and so I'm more nitpicky than a GA reviewer should be (I've never done a GA review before). I did try to get it done in a timely manner though, as I know that the first part of the review took a few days to get through. In any case, I think the article is in great shape now and deserving of GA status. Sorry if it seemed like I was being a little harsh in my assessment. I really like the work you have done with the Starcraft articles. Now if only the Diablo articles were up to snuff as well (Warcraft? Pah. I lost interest after Warcraft III was released.). Feel free to turn this into a GA at your leisure, I like pie. -  Yohhans talk 13:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, I agree. When I said yeah, go ahead, I didn't mean go overboard trying to make it an FA. Overall, it was good after it left my hands, but now, if it went through a short peer review, it could be FA. Don't trust me, though, ask those nitpicky guys at FA. ;-) Pie is good   (Apple is the best)  19:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks muchily to both of you for the review, its proved interesting. As this was the last StarCraft article to be passed as a GA/been audited in peer review, I can now put up a good topic candidacy for the StarCraft series. -- Sabre (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)