Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/StarCraft

StarCraft titles
Alrightly, StarCraft series just passed its GAN, so now seems like a good time to go for this new-fangled good topic thingy. StarCraft II, as it is unreleased and hence unstable, cannot currently pass GA, but it has been peer reviewed here. We've got this image available for the topic box's picture. -- Sabre (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Co-nom Also this should be StarCraft titles per the previous video game topics. Gary King ( talk ) 20:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - Great to see another video game topic here! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think more information from Insurrection and Retribution could be added, such as information from the first paragraph of the Overview in Insurrection - rst20xx (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There's not really anything further to add on Retribution and Insurrection that is compliant with reliable, secondary sources. What's in the StarCraft series article is all I could save. Believe me, I'd ideally like to have independent articles for them, but WP:V and WP:N prevent that as the sources just aren't available. Besides, the jist of the information in the overview paragraph of Insurrection is already there. In fact, looking through it, the only bit of information in the old articles that could be used is the fact that the two add-ons had full voice acting. -- Sabre (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Insurrection includes three new campaigns, comprising around 30 missions and over 100 new multiplayer maps. It was made using the standard Campaign Editor included with StarCraft and as such is unable to add new music, tilesets, cinematics or units like the complete expansion pack StarCraft: Brood War. However, it does include new heroes, factions and trigger sounds for briefings and key events within the campaigns." All of this sounds like important information to me, but none of it is in the StarCraft (series) article - rst20xx (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, all of which is covered in respect to the coverage's notability in the main article. Half of that was original research: I should know, I probably wrote it a few years back. I'm sorry, I really don't see the need to double the length of the paragraph to add some statistics that are already summarised and don't have the sources available to verify it. -- Sabre (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Sorry, I don't agree. I'm amazed that you claim you cannot even source the number of missions/multiplayer maps in a Starcraft expansion pack. Quick Google throws up a GameSpot review saying there are "30 missions along with over a hundred multiplayer maps" - so there's the source for that bit of information right there. And that took me all of about 2 seconds to find - rst20xx (talk) 10:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And it's not like you even have a source for the number of missions in Starcraft either - rst20xx (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You will find that that GameSpot review, which is already used in the article, is most likely the only reliable source covering Insurrection out there. Insurrection and Retribution received very little press and fan coverage, they are not even close to Brood War in terms of profile and notability. -- Sabre (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well OK then, you can at least still incorporate in the info from the GameSpot article! rst20xx (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added the bit on the number of levels, and the bit saying "it does not include new content such as units and graphical terrain tilesets" is basically the same as saying "is unable to add new music, tilesets, cinematics or units". The bit on being constructed in the Campaign Editor (and by extension the bits on new heroes and trigger sounds) is straight original research by me a few years back from going through the levels in the Campaign Editor and seeing how they were made (I hadn't quite grasped the OR policy back then), I can't verify it no matter how true it might be. -- Sabre (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I suppose that will do for me then. Thank you and support - rst20xx (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Zginder 2008-09-12T23:58Z (UTC)
 * Support All of the articles are well written, and were it not for the volatility the StarCraft II article will experience when the game is released, it too would easily be a GA. - Yohhans talk 17:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Reviewing StarCraft (series) was one of the more pleasurable moments of my life, finally something that wouldn't take more than 5 hours, as it was already too good. ;-) Good job, and I hope this passes. Pie is good   (Apple is the best)  21:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiny comment In StarCraft, don't superscript the th in 26th per bullet 5(not sub-bullets) of WP:SEASON Pie is good   (Apple is the best)  02:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Dealt with. -- Sabre (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Based on the logic used in my Millennium Park GTC above it seems to me that StarCraft II article is a possible GA and should be required to prove otherwise. Is there something at Peer review/StarCraft II/archive1 to indicate that this can not be a WP:GA. I don't think unreleased = unstable.  I have created WP:GAs for three buildings under construction.  See Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago).  See also Barack Obama, John McCain, etc.  Even politicians with rapidly changing positions in life, can pass.  Unstable means content dispute related instability.  If the article is complete it is eligible for GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ''


 * Comment I believe this issue applies to most of the current accepted game topics: the main series article really needs to explain the etymology of the name. Even it this topic, I believe that it is important for a reader to have that information available. Nergaal (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to really say on the series' name, I've certainly not come across anything in any sources I've seen, let alone reliable ones. Just seems like a case of "we need a spacey name for our product" "how about StarCraft?" "yeah ok". -- Sabre (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support — excellent work. sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 16:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)