Talk:The International 2016/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 15:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAG UAR   15:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * "The tournament initially began with the Americas, China, Europe, and Southeast Asia" - I don't see any reason for the continents to be linked
 * "All matches consisted of two games against the same opponent in a 'round robin format for each group" - already linked before
 * "Wings Gaming lost the first game in the series, but subsequently won the next three games in a row to win the series" - might be better to rephrase this to Wings Gaming lost the first game in the series, but subsequently won the next three games in a row to win The International 2016 (feel free to change or ignore)
 * Ref 24: add "ModernMethod" to the publisher field
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * No original research found.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

It took me a while reading through this article and checking the sources, but I couldn't find any issues worthy of keeping this on hold, so I'll pass it outright. It meets the criteria as it is well written, comprehensive, and all of the sources check out and comply per WP:VG/S. Well done! JAG UAR   11:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Dang, I did not expect this to pass GAN (I even forgot it was up for review), but I'm glad to see it be promoted regardless. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 23:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Back when I reviewed this article (see Talk:The International 2016), I noted that I didn't feel qualified to review the article because I wasn't able to check ("or even comprehend") the sections "Team", "Brackets", and "Main event". These sections take up the majority of the article, but I don't see you mention them in your review either. What do you think of these sections? ~ Mable ( chat ) 11:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I admit that I'm no expert on eSports, but I checked every source and the articles makes the most out of them, to be sure. Regarding the Team, Brackets, and Main event sections; I thought that they acted in a similar function to tables you normally find in articles on football world cups or an Olympics, so I didn't think anything of it. I can make sense of it, so I couldn't find any issues with clarity. Did you feel that I missed anything? JAG  UAR   16:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's just that I had already taken a comb through the article and had pretty much given a thumbs-up for the prose. All that I was really waiting for was someone who could check the tables. I was surprised to see someone look through the prose again and not mention the tables in the final review. I mean, it makes my effort feel fairly useless too... But well, if you feel comfortable with calling this article a GA, then I'm sure they're fine.. ~ Mable ( chat ) 19:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't mean to make your effort feel in vain - honestly I didn't know about any of this when I first took the review. What should I have checked with the tables? Do you think they should be removed? I've seem a lot of sport-related with both prose and tables, and I suppose this technically a sports article... I really don't know. I think this is the last time I'll ever review an eSports article... JAG  UAR   21:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I don't want this to be the last time you review an article like this! I just don't know how to confirm the information that is in the tables and am only worried about some of it possibly being inaccurate. I'm sure it's fine, but I just didn't want to do a review without being able to properly check the information to be correct... ~ Mable ( chat ) 21:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I can guarantee all the information inside the tables are accurate. Here is the bracket and its results from the official Dota 2 website, and here are the group results. I didn't think to add them directly as sources since the link is included in the external links, making them kind of redundant. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 10:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)