Talk:Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness/GA1

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

Reviewer: Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Images
 * File:Warcraft-2-Tides-Of-Darkness-Pc.jpg really doesn't need to be any larger than 256px horizontal dimension. It might be better to find an image without the "game of the year" branding covering up a good chunk of it. The description page should be cleaned up (you've got unnecessary rationales) and the rationales made more detailed.
 * Really don't need File:Warcraftii-beyond-the-dark-portal-cover-art.jpg
 * File:WC2_Tides_UI_01.png could use with better rationale text.
 * Layout and Style
 * This article is structure in a rather funky way that is, in a word, bad. Why is there a "Predecessor" subsection? Why is it so long? Why is it buried at the end of the article, when any relevant information should be with development and establishing context earlier? Why is there so much on sequels that should be in the main WarCraft (series) page? Why is the storyline after everything else in the article? Why does the gameplay begin with basics, then jump to game modes before elaborating on gameplay? The entire article really needs to be reorganized and recast.
 * The article doesn't have much on development; as I said earlier, some of the content for predecessor could work, but there needs to be more.
 * Prose
 * There's lots of awkward or unnecessary phrasing. Beginning of gameplay: "Warcraft II is a real time strategy game (RTS),[1] in other words the contenders play at the same time and continuously, so that players have to move quickly." Bad, almost game-guide tone, how about just explaining what an RTS is instead of beating around the bush and giving us a really bad explanation before actually cutting to the chase.
 * Corrected referenced complaint --Iankap99 (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I am putting the article on hold for crit. 1, 3, and 6 of WP:GA?. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Cut out all the "the"'s that serve no purpose throughout. "The builders can also construct Farms, each of which provides food for up to four units, and additional units cannot be produced until enough Farms are built.[11] Farms are also the toughest perimeter defense.[13] Humans and Orcs have sets of buildings with similar functions, but different names and graphics, for producing ground, naval, and air units.[1] All but the basic combat units require the assistance of other buildings, or must be produced at buildings that have prerequisite buildings, or both.[11][14] Many of the buildings can upgrade combat units.[8]"
 * "However in the late game"→What does this mean to non-gamers? Parts of the article need to be recast so they are more evident to those who haven't played RTS or other games. People shouldn't have to click away from a page to get the bare minimum gist of terms.
 * "Blizzard Entertainment's initial response to Command and Conquer was a design that combined modern and fantasy elements, such as fighter pilots ambushed by a fire-breathing dragon. However, they found that this did not work, and that there was plenty of content for a fantasy RTS.[19] Blizzard developed Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness ("WC II"), and released the MS-DOS version in 1995 and the Macintosh version in August 1996.[20]"→This is misleading, as it sounds like WarCraft II was developed immediately in response to C&C.
 * References
 * This game came out in 1995, but there's not a single review (that I can see) from that time aside from the standard IGN, GameSpot, et al ones. Aside from the reviews, that's about it for contemporary sources, and it shows in the lack of development info.

I'm copy your comments for discussion, and split some of your comments that cover separate items: --Philcha (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

- - - - - - - - - - - -
 * Images
 * File:Warcraft-2-Tides-Of-Darkness-Pc.jpg really doesn't need to be any larger than 256px horizontal dimension.
 * I keep some flexibility so that I adjust on the page to show the smallest size that is easy seen, to avoid layout problems in different screen sizes, user-defined resolutions, etc. --Philcha (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's in a predefined template. There are no layout issues with a fixed resolution since that's standard. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked a few history versions and they all looked the same.
 * As a result I wonder if we were both refering to the UI img, which is the one I adjust to the small size that's easier seen. Sorry for the confusion. --Philcha (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It might be better to find an image without the "game of the year" branding covering up a good chunk of it.
 * It seems to be Blizzard's preference, and provides information to the reader. --Philcha (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The description page should be cleaned up (you've got unnecessary rationales)
 * The combination of singular then plural puzzled me, and I guessed that you mean a comment for each image used:
 * Re File:Warcraft-2-Tides-Of-Darkness-Pc.jpg:
 * The rationale seems to cover the items required, in fact item "Purpose of use" looks verbose to me. --Philcha (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have other concerns about the description page? --Philcha (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Really don't need File:Warcraftii-beyond-the-dark-portal-cover-art.jpg
 * Removed. --Philcha (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * File:WC2_Tides_UI_01.png could use with better rationale text.
 * Expanded. --Philcha (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm uncertain whether a separate rationale is needed for Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness, which redirects to Warcraft II. What's your advice? --Philcha (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There needs to be a rationale for every page a non-free images appears on, not including redirects. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Layout and Style
 * This article is structure in a rather funky way that is, in a word, bad.
 * Can you please explain. --Philcha (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That is elaborated on below. The point is, this article flaunts established convention for structuring video game articles for no good reason, including lots of irrelevant details and bad structuring that does not proceed logically. Information about how Warcraft: Orcs and Humans was received should be discussed before the development, marketing, and reception of its sequel. Just because another article is not fully structured yet does not mean that details that should belong on that page should be crammed in elsewhere. No such article has to "rely" on another to be comprehensible. We're not a game guide, which is why I do not understand your comment, ""Gameplay" must be first, as it allows readers to decide whether the game is good and whether it's to the reader's taste". This isn't an article for gamers, it's an article for a general audience that should be succinct and understandable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Re convention for structuring video games, WP:WIAGA defines a subset of MOS. Any project MOS addition would also be excluded. --Philcha (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid "lots of irrelevant details and bad structuring that does not proceed logically" tells me nothing. --Philcha (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How Warcraft: Orcs and Humans was received has 2 purposes: to motivate the development of WC2, which I'll add and will be brief; and as the origin of Blizzard's idiosyncratic approach, which was very successful and also played its part in the RTS boom of the next few years. --Philcha (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Re "No such article has to "rely" on another to be comprehensible", WP:SUMMARY only does so far and leaves at least some readers wanting more. What happens if the connection is broken? ---Philcha (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Re "We're not a game guide, which is why I do not understand your comment, ""Gameplay" must be first, as it allows readers to decide whether the game is good and whether it's to the reader's taste". This isn't an article for gamers, it's an article for a general audience that should be succinct and understandable", I think non-gamers in a general audience need an mental picture of what of thing the game is, and whether it's good and to their taste. --Philcha (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is there a "Predecessor" subsection? Why is it so long?
 * You ask "is there a "Predecessor" subsection?" and in the next comment you query its position. Am I missing something? --Philcha (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is it ("Predecessor") buried at the end of the article, when any relevant information should be with development and establishing context earlier?
 * "Tides of Darkness" describes why WC2, with C&C, were the most influential games of the time and launched the late 1990s RTS boom. "Predecessor" describes how WC:O&H established the modern RTS and set the pattern for the WC ... RTS games, including the character and story elements for which they're famous. --Philcha (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see how to add some development in "Publication", by split "Publication" in sub-sections "Development" and "History". I expect "Development" may be short, as Fahs was impressed that Blizzard managed to release such a large upgrade in only 12 months. "History" will have the history of releases in the series. The point of this is that its non-linear and the final version, for Battle.net, omits some features of earlier versions. --Philcha (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * First version of development done, refs to come. No sub-headings. --Philcha (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is there so much on sequels that should be in the main Warcraft (series) page?
 * At present Warcraft (series) is a long way from GA and it's unlikely to be stable. So it would be risky for WC2 to rely it. --Philcha (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is the storyline after everything else in the article?
 * IMO "Gameplay" must be first, as it allows readers to decide whether the game is good and whether it's to the reader's taste. The succeeding sections form a sequence, and the storyline should not break this. I suspect a lot of gamers don't reader it, as they're to busy killing things. --Philcha (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why does the gameplay begin with basics, then jump to game modes before elaborating on gameplay?
 * The basics just under "Gameplay" is a mini-lead. "Economy and power" and "User interface" should form a sequence, first the concepts and then the visual implementation. "Economy and power" is about the "collect resources, built army, destroy enemies" pattern. "Modes" should precede "Economy and power" to tell the reader that there other patterns - which the WC series pioneered. Placing "Modes" after "User interface" would jolt the reader, as it would introduce a major change in that pattern. --Philcha (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The entire article really needs to be reorganized and recast.
 * I hope that we're already discuss this. --Philcha (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't have much on development; as I said earlier, some of the content for predecessor could work, but there needs to be more.
 * I hope that we're already discuss this too. --Philcha (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Prose
 * There's lots of awkward or unnecessary phrasing.
 * Beginning of gameplay: "Warcraft II is a real time strategy game (RTS),[1] in other words the contenders play at the same time and continuously, so that players have to move quickly." Bad, almost game-guide tone, how about just explaining what an RTS is instead of beating around the bush and giving us a really bad explanation before actually cutting to the chase.
 * Based closely on 2 cites by Geryk and 1 by Cobbet. --Philcha (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Cut out all the "the"'s that serve no purpose throughout. "The builders can also construct Farms, each of which provides food for up to four units, and additional units cannot be produced until enough Farms are built.[11] Farms are also the toughest perimeter defense.[13] Humans and Orcs have sets of buildings with similar functions, but different names and graphics, for producing ground, naval, and air units.[1] All but the basic combat units require the assistance of other buildings, or must be produced at buildings that have prerequisite buildings, or both.[11][14] Many of the buildings can upgrade combat units.[8]"
 * I've cut " The b Builders can also construct Farms ...", "All but the basic combat units ..." and "Many of the'' buildings can upgrade combat units ..." - thanks. --Philcha (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "However in the late game"→What does this mean to non-gamers?
 * How about "When advanced units appear, the Orcs have a strong advantage ..."? --Philcha (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. --Philcha (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Parts of the article need to be recast so they are more evident to those who haven't played RTS or other games. People shouldn't have to click away from a page to get the bare minimum gist of terms.
 * I suspect there's a conflict between RTS players and those who haven't played RTS - the players will be bored by explanations. Which do you think are the most important terms? --Philcha (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Blizzard Entertainment's initial response to Command and Conquer was a design that combined modern and fantasy elements, such as fighter pilots ambushed by a fire-breathing dragon. However, they found that this did not work, and that there was plenty of content for a fantasy RTS.[19] Blizzard developed Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness ("WC II"), and released the MS-DOS version in 1995 and the Macintosh version in August 1996.[20]"→This is misleading, as it sounds like WarCraft II was developed immediately in response to C&C.
 * I'll check the chronology, e.g. Fahs -- --Philcha (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed phrase that Blizzard's timing was influenced by that of C&C. --Philcha (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * References
 * This game came out in 1995, but there's not a single review (that I can see) from that time aside from the standard IGN, GameSpot, et al ones. Aside from the reviews, that's about it for contemporary sources, and it shows in the lack of development info.
 * I searched metacritic, rottentomatoes (only a possible film), Google, Google Scholar (found only material about Wargus, with passing mentioning of WC2) and Google News (found nothing). Google Books found a review in "InfoWorld" 25 Nov 1996 (short, nothing new), a few strategy, a few academic books on game design, and passing mentions. I looked for comparison with Starcraft and the range of contemporary sources looks similar except for previews and announcements - and Blizzard don't take these seriously, looking at the delays on Starcraft and WC3. --Philcha (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Online print archive has only sources used in the article long before the GA review. I also found and used a few other reviews long before the GA review, some contemporary, and a multi-page web source that I've just found and used in the "Publication" section. --Philcha (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Online print archive should help. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, JimmyBlackwing. I'll see if I've any others and add them at the WikiProject's Talk page.
 * One of your list gave me a better heading for a section of the article, thanks for that too.
 * I have a little research project at User:Philcha/Sandbox/Reference methods, comparing , sfn and harvnb. At present the real info is in the examples, as the notes are scrappy. If you think that would be useful, I could copy it in a sub-page of the WikiProject, with proper notes. The  example also includes a clever technique Visionholder showed me for managing books that consist of articles / chapters, without duplicating the book details (title, editor,publisher, ISBN, etc.) - it's in the "References" section of the example. You'd need to decide whether it's useful for video games. I'll use it as needed in other topics, and should retrofit it to perhaps 12-15 articles. --Philcha (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The reviewer seems to taken no part in this review since 9 May - is there a difficulty, e.g. RL? --Philcha (talk) 06:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was waiting for you to address all my comments/implement any changes before I took another look at the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd responded to all your comments - have I've missed some? --Philcha (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's kinda hard to tell. :P I'll take a look this weekend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion
I'm not going to discuss every single issue listed about the entire article, as I don't have the time right now, but I will say that I agree that the predecessor and successor section is far too detailed. Some general information about WC1 and WC3 would be appropriate, but going into detail about sales figures, critical reception, awards, etc. is just too much. All that information is redundant with what is already in the other articles. It also looks like there is some WP:OR in that section, with these two sentences as quick examples:
 * "They wanted to show a nobler side of the Orcs and a darker one of the Humans, in a game in which the story and humor were central rather than background."
 * Is a paraphrase of "Blizzard's horde was cruel and barbaric, but far from the mindless monsters of J.R.R Tolkien's universe. They were a proud, noble race of warriors, with their own culture, lore, and traditions. Humans, too, had their dark side, and Warcraft Adventures hoped to blur those lines of good and evil." --Philcha (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Perhaps Blizzard tried to do too much at the same time..."
 * Is a paraphrase of " Blizzard itself was in a kind of turmoil of its own at the time, with many long-time employees leaving to form spin-offs, while dozens of new employees came in to work on StarCraft, Diablo II, Battle.net, and the company's many other projects." --Philcha (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly advise that the storyline section should be much, much higher up in the article, either as the very first section or immediately after gameplay. It just doesn't make sense to be the very last section, especially when you've already described other games in the previous section, which should indicate the article is winding down, as the primary subject has been completely covered. Look at the organization of the Warcraft III article:
 * 1) Gameplay
 * 2) * 1.1 Campaign
 * 3) * 1.2 Multiplayer
 * 4) Synopsis
 * 5) * 2.1 Setting
 * 6) * 2.2 Plot
 * 7) Sound
 * 8) Modding
 * 9) Development
 * 10) * 5.1 Other versions
 * 11) Reception

That seems a lot more logical to me. Notice also that the WC3 article doesn't have a predecessors section at all. I would recommend at least trimming the predecessor and successor down significantly. On a related note, Starcraft is not a sequel. It's in a completely separate game universe. You might call it a game that followed the footsteps of WC2, or something similar, but it's definitely not a sequel. You could change the section to indicate that somehow. Hopefully someone else can make further remarks about other aspects of the review. Torchiest talk/contribs 22:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "They wanted to show a nobler side of the Orcs and a darker one of the Humans" and "Perhaps Blizzard tried to do too much at the same time..." are not WP:OR, they have a citation. --Philcha (talk) 07:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, the first one could be okay, but the second one is speculation, and I don't see anything in the source that really backs the statement up. Yes, they were doing a lot of things, but I don't think an encyclopedia article should speculate on whether it was too many things. Torchiest talk/contribs 16:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Re The "second one is speculation", it's cited, so it's not any old speculation. I've attributed it, to make it clear that the speculation is his and not ours. --Philcha (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in the source that says Blizzard tried to do too much. It's a good source for saying what they were doing, but the "too much" part, where does that come from?  That's my concern. Torchiest talk/contribs 05:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "too many things" paraphrases "Blizzard itself was in a kind of turmoil of its own at the time, with many long-time employees leaving to form spin-offs, while dozens of new employees came in to work on StarCraft, Diablo II, Battle.net, and the company's many other projects"
 * I'm sorry, but that is original research. The source says nothing about "too many" projects.  It mentions losing employees, getting new employees, and have many other projects.  That's entirely different from your article text says by making a judgment about how many projects is too many. Torchiest talk/contribs 16:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO your last comment is a selective quotation that omits the important phrases "Blizzard itself was in a kind of turmoil of its own at the time" and "the company's many other projects". --Philcha (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Re storyline, do we first agree that sections "Modes", " Economy and war" and "User interface" need to be an uninterrupted sequence? Assuming for now that we do, "Storyline" must be either before or after all that sequence - but which, and why? At Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Philosopher's_Stone of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone and at Talk:Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets/GA1 of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets 2 different reviewers agreed on the same criterion for inclusion in the storyline, and that it should be first so that later sections can refer it, e.g. "Reception". There was no suggestion that the film or VG game(s) should precede the storyline. In an article about a VG game, the gameplay is the base on which "Reception", etc. are built. --Philcha (talk) 07:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong opinion on the gameplay section. A gameplay section is definitely a necessity for a game article, but I'm not worried about the organizational issues.  I would think plot or storyline would go first, but I would be okay with it being after gameplay.  Just definitely not the last section in the article. Torchiest talk/contribs 16:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're OK with gameplay preceding Storyline. Would you want it to precede "Reception" or "Publication"? IMO both of these should be as close to gameplay as possible, to explain these sections. But in that case the only place for Storyline is last. --Philcha (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, storyline should definitely be in front of those things. With movie articles, the plot is before the release and reception sections.  Production and background is in front of release and reception for music album articles as well.  It's a more important section, since it explains the contents of the subject. Torchiest talk/contribs 19:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We seem to have 2 discussions now about Storyline, here and "the gameplay is the base on which "Reception", etc. are built" below. I suggest we decide which of these to use. --Philcha (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, we'll use . --Philcha (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * about UI features included in Starcraft but excluded from Battle.net. --Philcha (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Will look at predecessors and successors later. --Philcha (talk) 07:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Re storyline, do we first agree that sections "Modes", " Economy and War" and "User interface" need to be an uninterrupted sequence? Assuming for now that we do, "Storyline" must be either before or after all that sequence - but which, and why? At Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Philosopher's_Stone of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone and at Talk:Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets/GA1 of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets 2 different reviewers agreed on the same criterion for inclusion in the storyline, and that it should be first so that later sections can refer it, e.g. "Reception". There was no suggestion that the film or VG game(s) should precede the storyline. In an article about a VG game, the gameplay is the base on which "Reception", etc. are built. The game manual, a PDF, is the source of the Storyline but is written in the style of The Silmarillion on a bad day, which will deter almost of the minority who look at the Storyline. --Philcha (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a list of featured articles. All of them do gameplay, plot, and then everything else:
 * Chrono Trigger
 * Final Fantasy VI
 * Half-Life 2
 * Myst
 * StarCraft
 * The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
 * I'm pretty sure it's the standard way of doing things for video game articles. Check here for more information. Torchiest talk/contribs 05:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:WIAGA is very specific about what parts of MOS it applies, and hence excludes WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. --Philcha (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets looks the opposite of Warcraft II, but underneath both work in the same way - first give the information that is not provided elsewhere, then give information based on the first stage, etc. --Philcha (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Storyline, as in addition to being appalling, would distract the reader from the sequence above. Hence it should be at the end. --Philcha (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. Storyline is an important part of the game, and I think it should be more prominent.  If you disagree, that's your prerogative, but I have nothing else to add at this point. <B>Torchiest</B> talk/contribs 08:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See above - "The Storyline ... would distract the reader from the sequence above. Hence it should be at the end". --Philcha (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's an extract from section "A Brief History of the Fall of Azeroth" in the manual.


 * The counterpart for the Orcs, "The History of Orcish Ascension", starts in more rational style (or bloodthirsty) but then goes mystical when the "magick" becomes important.


 * WP:OR, of course, but gives the impression. --Philcha (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Third reviewer's comments
I don't have much, but it seems extremely out of place to have the Storyline section after Reception. Is there a rationale for doing it this way? --Teancum (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Addressing the rest: What the suggested organization of a video game article tries to do is consider the article first from the perspective of the game: we're keeping the plot, gameplay, and setting together. Then, we take a look at the stuff that doesn't have such an intimate connection to the game (what you call its "history"): its development and reception. Discussion of the history should necessarily include reception to the plot (I would be very surprised if it doesn't!), which you've now preempted by placing the plot below said "history". That disorder is what is nonsensical to me. --Izno (talk) 08:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See above - "The Storyline ... would distract the reader from the sequence above. Hence it should be at the end". --Philcha (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would strongly disagree. As someone who started out simply reading the article it was very distracting as it is.  The Reception section serves as an excellent concluder to an article, and is expected by most readers to be at the end.  Users searching for a synopsis when scrolling through the article will be confused by its placement.  In this case I would have to agree with other reviewers. Additionally just throwing away WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines is unwise, as it has become the standard for game articles.  WP:WIAGA also doesn't state that Wikiproject's standards cannot add upon the manual of style, unless I missed it.  --Teancum (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikiprojects can add to the manual of style, but WP:WIAGA disallows them for use in GA reviews - WP:WIAGA does not add, it substracts. --Philcha (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to be a bit direct here. I can't help but feel that you're fighting this as something you feel runs better, rather than using a given standard. I see what you mean, given WP:WIAGA states "Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles." If you truly feel its better then perhaps bringing in a few folks from multiple Wikiprojects to come to consensus would be wise. Though the reality for an article becoming a GA is that its considered well written and laid out for the reader. Given the standard of WP:VG/GL a reader will look for things to be laid out in a certain manner. Don't we want to lay out the article for the sake of the reader? Policy aside I don't understand the rationale you mentioned for putting it at the bottom. --Teancum (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree with WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines - the first item from "lead" of the guideline, the rest from section "For games": --Philcha (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Here are a few ideas for how to organize articles. These do not necessarily have to correspond to the actual section headers and divisions, and they are no more than suggestions. Do not try to conform to them if they are not helping to improve the article."
 * "Gameplay: going over the significant parts of how the game works. Remember not to include player's guide or walkthrough material. The gameplay section should come before the plot section, with the exception of when it would help to simplify the discussion of either section."
 * "Plot: if the plot is not too complex, it can be lumped in with the gameplay; otherwise, put it in its own section."
 * However, I disgree with the impication that "History: discuss development, release, impact, critical response, etc." should follow plot - as I've already said, "History: discuss development, release, impact, critical response, etc." are based on gameplay, and for the benefit of readers there should be no interruption in that sequence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philcha (talk • contribs)
 * (not reviewer) I'm of the opinion that it isn't exactly an onerous request to bring the article inline with the many FAs' structure.


 * I second Tezero's suggest to not pass the article at this time. It seems that at this time the best place to take this would be to WikiProject Video games/Peer review until both the reviewers and the nominator are in aggreeance that it is ready for renomination.  The nominator has done an excellent job citing things, however there's just too much disagreement on presentation to come to a consensus right now.  Recommending a Peer Review and then a renomination once things are kosher. --Teancum (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

- - - - - reflist below; rest of GA review above  - - - - -

- - - - GA review above this line; anything else below - - - - - - -

Fourth reviewer

 * I'm afraid that this doesn't meet the GA criteria yet, and here's why:
 * The Gameplay section has a few short paragraphs, which should probably be merged into larger ones.
 * The Reception section is disorganized and consists of many short paragraphs.
 * The last four reviewers in the reviews table for Tides of Darkness should be alphabetized. Moreover, I'm not sure that The Adrenaline Vault and Gamezilla are notable.
 * MacGame and Absolute PlayStation, other reviewers referenced in the Reception section, may not be notable either.
 * I think the Predecessor stuff should be moved to about the start of the Publication section for chronology's sake. "Predecessor and sequels" is a rather problematic name for a section, especially when it consists only of two subsections called "Predecessor" and "Sequels". The way it is now makes it seem like the section is just a "miscellaneous related games" section. Tezero (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Tezero, thanks for the comments.
 * The short paragraphs are intentional, idea per one para. This is based on Web usability maxims since 1997 - see User:Philcha. The physical basis is that even the best screens have much lower dot pitch than printers, so screens look grainy. As a result, "users want to scan, not read". --Philcha (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In section "Reception" there are reasons for the order, but perhaps I did't make them clear.
 * "The rivalry between Blizzard's series and Westwood Studios' Command & Conquer series fueled the RTS boom of the late 1990s" is the most important point in section "Reception" and possibly in the whole article. --Philcha (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO the next most important is reinforcing the need for RTS to have multiplayer facilities, including various utilities. --Philcha (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Next is general gameplay, of the type that could be noted by reviews of the time. --01:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Then the balance issues, which could only be picked by retrospective reviewers. --Philcha (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Then various smaller points. I've combined these, see if you like the effect. --Philcha (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by The Adrenaline Vault and Gamezilla are not "notable". In any VG magazine the reviews vary, and only gamers can tell. This review from The Adrenaline Vault notes 3-4 points that gamers will recognise immediately. For contrast, Tom Chick in "PC Retroview: Master of Orion II" quite wrongly said, "Subterranean give races like the Psilons and Silicoids an incredible advantage, particularly when played by humans; they're generally banished from multiplayer games" - and gamers will immediately recognise the error. --Philcha (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Mac commmunity was keen to port games to the Mac. Section "Publication" gives 2 good cites. --Philcha (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with Absolute PlayStation? The cites are from GameSpot. --Philcha (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've spotted some duplication in section "Economy and war" - "Humans and Orcs have sets of buildings with similar functions ..." and "Most of the game's units and buildings on the two sides are counterparts to each other". How to you like the result? --Philcha (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I need to sleep - I'm in UK. I'll resume in the morning. --Philcha (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your patience. --Philcha (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, I noticed that you used a score of 79 from MobyGames, when I see a score of 90 at the relevant citation's URL. What's up? --Izno (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you were doing with the table Phil; I undid the edits you seemed to be making, as we should use the template if at all possible. I did alphabetize the last four, as was requested by Tezero (unless "The Adrenaline" should be ABCed under T and not A). Removed IGN, because it had no score (it is still used in the prose). --Izno (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reinstated the table because I expect to see 8 reviews, and the template shows only 6. --Philcha (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I got the template to show all the ones that you had in there (I was very careful to use all the sources from the table you constructed, too). Were there any others?
 * The 90% for MG is an aggregate. As a result of the recent distraction I've forgotten what the other one, it'll come back to me - I should still be asleep and will be back asleep in a few minutes, but something awoke me briefy - no, I don't think I'm psychic :-) --Philcha (talk) 04:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't MG an aggregater though...? That would make the 90% a bit more appropriate than the 79, no? --Izno (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've shown the table again as it's there to be compared with the VG template:
 * Tezero and I agree on alphabetising the citations, which appearing the template can't do.
 * The template requires code which it then (sometimes) expand into text. I'm not interested in learning these codes. In fact I suspect someone developed the version because he/she found it interesting rather than useful, and it's just grown since then. --Philcha (talk) 08:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Tezero's exact words are "last four reviewers". There are 1 aggregate and 2 reviews which you have chosen to use which are built into the template, and then 1 aggregate and 4 reviews which are custom; i.e., they need to be added as I have done. He presumably means the custom parameters&mdash;the 4 reviews which are custom&mdash;need to be alphabetized.
 * As for interesting/not interesting, it looks useful to me in the way that templates are. And you don't have to learn the usage of the template if someone else is interested in learning. --Izno (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It might be helpful if Tezero says which reviews are needed. --Philcha (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be dependent on the termplae(s), but am fine with HTML. --Philcha (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I did mean the custom reviews, by the way, when I said "last four reviewers". Adrenaline Vault and Gamezilla can stay if you all think they're necessary. It just seems like there are more notable critics that should also be included. For example, IGN, which is probably the most notable game critic ever here on WP, has a Tides of Darkness review and a retrospective review of Warcraft II as a whole. Some debate the usefulness of Allgame, but they gave a synopsis/review and a score. Tezero (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * WoogieNoogie, This change destroyed work that I had done, and that was already being discussed by other editors. You've done less work total in WP than any of other editors discussing this done in a hour or 2. I suggest you see, read, think, Talk and then wait for responses. --Philcha (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * He probably doesn't know about the thread. /chide --Izno (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And may not understand or use watchlist. OK, I'd write to his/hers Talk. --Philcha (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems a bit of WP:BITE, don't you think? It's not yelling, but it could quickly discourage a newcomer by feeling like "They've Caused Trouble". It seems that the user was clearly trying to help. --Teancum (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have another project that aims to get newcomers working quickly, effectively, safely and hopefully enjoyable. But to do that I cannot waste time. --Philcha (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * WoogieNoogiehas not discussed at his/her Talk page nor here. I don't see any prospect of progress with him/her. --Philcha (talk) 10:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

We're at four reviews now in a couple months with little going on recently. Is this going to be passed/failed? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The most recent edit was June 21. Prioritizing behind the scenes? I'm not sure, but you're right, either way it's been going on a while. Tezero (talk) 02:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I asked for a second review because I would be unwilling to pass the article as it is structured, and Philcha seems unwilling to make changes to ameliorate that concern. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * David Fuchs's initial comments were IMO not constructive, and I found them so confused that my first act was to try to restructure them.
 * The article is about a game, not about literature. The literature quality of the story is terrible, as can seen in the first few paragraphs in the "hidden" box. --Philcha (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Fifth reviewer
I'm afraid that I'm going to have to agree with the majority of the above reviews. At the moment this article simply does not meet the GA requirements. I think the best thing to do would be to delist (or fail) the article for the time being, and take it to a peer review, where I am sure that myself and the above reviewers will be happy to put some more time in to help you iron out the problems. To summarise my own major issues with the article:


 * 1) I do not feel the article is well-written, in places the article lacks clarity, and a lot of the language is 'clunky' (The more advanced combat units are produced at the same buildings as the basic units but also need the assistance of other buildings, or must be produced at buildings that have prerequisite buildings. for example).
 * 2) Parts of the article are un-encyclopedic, as highlighted above, the phrase "Perhaps Blizzard tried to do too much at the same time" epitomises this.  It may be factually true, but it is conjecture; if you want/need to use such language, you'll need to put it in a direct quote.
 * 3) I'm not overly fussed about the location of the Storyline section; I'd rather see it earlier in the article, but it's not to me a huge issue.  What I am more interested in is how the storyline pans out.  I must admit, as I have never played the game, I don't really know how it works.  Does the storyline just get introduced before hand, and then the scenarios are pretty unconnected, or do the scenarios make up the storyline?  If the latter, then I would like to see information on when the storyline occurs (ie which bits happen in the original game and in the expansion).  But as I say, that may not be relevant.

As I say, in my opinion, there are a number of little issues with this article that are more suitable to be fixed at a peer review than a good article review.
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 *  Harrias  <sup style="color:#009900;">talk 14:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 *  Harrias  <sup style="color:#009900;">talk 14:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 *  Harrias  <sup style="color:#009900;">talk 14:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Harrias. I had a quickly look before getting down to business and, whatever happens the result, you have a different approach and that will be thought-provoking. Now for business.
 * 1 Could you please give some examples of where you think the prose is poor. For example you criticised "The more advanced combat units are produced at the same buildings as the basic units but also need the assistance of other buildings, or must be produced at buildings that have prerequisite buildings." Would you prefer this split into 2 sentences, e.g. "Both sides produce ground combat units from their Barracks. However, both need the assistance of other buildings to produce more advanced combat units and to upgrade all combat units. In addition some of the support buildings are prequisites for others." --Philcha (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2a I'm surprised that you think some parts don't have refs, as I've just skimmed the article, and there's at last 1 ref at the end of each paragraph and and usually refs inside each paragraph. --Philcha (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2c Given the refs, where you think there's WP:OR. --Philcha (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * says, "Then again, Blizzard itself was in a kind of turmoil of its own at the time, with many long-time employees leaving to form spin-offs, while dozens of new employees came in to work on StarCraft, Diablo II, Battle.net, and the company's many other projects. To add to the chaos, Blizzard itself would eventually be bought out by Sierra, who in turn would be bought by Havas Interactive, which later was acquired by Vivendi Universal." I've work the quote in to section "Sequels", what do you think? --Philcha (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The "official" Blizzard story is in the backstory of the next game, e.g. Warcraft contains the backstory of Warcraft: Orcs & Humans. While I've seen no comment from Blizzard, this procedure avoids spoilers. 1 or 2 good WP:SPS sites construct stories from the campaigns, but these are very detailed. But my main point is still that the article would have no point without that gameplay, but would be informative without the story. --Philcha (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If this results in a fail, I'll try Peer Review - they're quick and I should use them more often. --Philcha (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Closure
OK, I have been watching this for some time. There have been five reviewers and still no conclusion. I am going to fail this nomination now, I see that the fail box has already been ticked. It can be taken to WP:GAR if you disagree, or the points raised can be addressed and the article renominated at WP:GAN. The Peerr review suggestion is also a good suggestion. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Dummy section
To start a new section outside the GA review. Replace with a real section when needed. --Philcha (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)