Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Warcraft II/1

Warcraft II

 * • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 * Result: No action. There is no consensus to list this article, and there remain unresolved concerns. Geometry guy 21:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Warcraft_II/GA1 has several defects, and I'm reluctant to insert Talk:Warcraft_II/GA1 as this would be it more for GAR reviewers to make their comments easy to see. However I will insert the whole of Talk:Warcraft_II/GA1 is required.

A few of the problems with Talk:Warcraft_II/GA1:
 * The first GA reviewer's first statement was so poorly structured that I restructured it so I could understanding. None of the reviewers object to the result.
 * The complain that "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" was, in the first reviewer opinion, "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". However, the article gives 2 citations for the explanation of RTS, IMO this is relevant, and hence trying to removed it would be WP:POV.
 * WP:WIAGA uses a strict subset of MOS, and WikiProject extensions are also outside WP:WIAGA.
 * The story, when present in games, is generally subordinate to the gameplay, for example:
 * Total_Annihilation's story is a concise summary of the gameplay: "What began as a conflict over the transfer of consciousness from flesh to machines escalated into a war which has decimated a million worlds. The Core and the Arm have all but exhausted the resources of a galaxy in their struggle for domination. Both sides now crippled beyond repair, the remnants of their armies continue to battle on ravaged planets, their hatred fueled by over four thousand years of total war. This is a fight to the death. For each side, the only acceptable outcome is the complete elimination of the other.
 * The in-game stories of the Red Alert series simply explain why the western powers are fighting Stalin rather than Hitler.
 * Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares has no story within the game and 1 page in the manual. --Philcha (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * General responses
 * As of noting this GAR I have taken a look at Total Annihilation, which was reassessed as C class due to poor sourcing and WP:GAMEGUIDE material (external links, some material throughout article). I have also placed Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares under GAR here, as there are currently several issues with that article as well.  Command & Conquer: Red Alert is also currently C class, and so these may not be the best examples to cite against.
 * The primary editor was encouraged to seek a peer review, and they have done so. It seems premature to seek reassessment prior to completion of peer review.
 * The GAN reviewer requested a 2nd opinion and a total of five other reviewers assessed the article, each feeling that it had too many issues.
 * The initial review cited by Philcha listed issues he could correct in the meantime. And regardless of the structuring of the review itself, the issue is not with how the review is laid out, but whether the article addressed the issues listed in the review itself.
 * On the issue of WP:WIAGA the nominator seems to imply that WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines operates outside of the paramaters of WP:WIAGA, and that the Wikiproject to which he assigned the GAN should follow only general WP:WIAGA rules, ignoring the WikiProject's guidelines, which use Template:subcat guideline, stating they are guidelines that must be followed.
 * Though I feel that Philcha's contributions and editing are excellent overall and don't want to offend the editor, I felt that I should make a few points in defense of WP:VG. --Teancum (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Responses:
 * Peer review closed on 21 July 2010.
 * Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares passed GA on July 1, 2009. But Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Good articles did not list Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares as late as 31 July 2009, perhaps because WikiProject Video games assesses Master of Orion II as Mid-priority.
 * I'd have thought getting Total Annihilation and Command & Conquer: Red Alert to GA or even FA would be a better return on the effort.
 * Would you want me to do a GA review in the same style as the one for Warcraft II, so that the nominator's first task would need to restucture it and I would give no help in identify issues? I generally use a standard procedure, but could omit:
 * Coverage, in other words what to include / exclude per WP:WIAGA.
 * Structure. To group aspects of the article to other and often to order that so that (sub-)sections that provide information precede those that use that information.
 * (Sub-)sections, looking at e.g. prose and citations.
 * Check for broken links and DAB pages.
 * Check the lead last, when no further changes are expected in tha main text.
 * As a nominator does not know when a GA review may be start, it may be a time when the nominator is busy for other things. I make an allowance for RL if the nominator requests this at the start of the review.
 * If you disagree with any my comments, please say so - I'm not infallible.

More later - RL again --Philcha (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

My fault on the peer review. WP:Video Games still had it listed on their to-do list. As far as any disagreements, I only wanted to state the Wikiproject's POV, I personally don't have enough interest in this particular article to have any arguments. --Teancum (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. WikiProject guidelines, including WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines, are not and have never been part of the good article criteria. However, they may and often do advise reviewers in the interpretation of the criteria (e.g. broadness) for particular types of article. Geometry guy 21:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * GA issues. Having reviewed the article, I believe it does not meet the GA criteria at present: problems include 1a (clarity), 1b (lead section and fiction) and 3b (focus). In broad terms, the current structure is unencyclopedic, disjointed, with in-universe and game-play elements dominating.
 * The first disjunction is the third paragraph of the lead ("Players must collect resources...") The reader is obliged to be drawn into the game-play without a clear understanding of what this game-play entails. "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." illustrates the poor prose and in-universe trend: buildings are not regarded as assistants in real life. Here also is the first of many wikilinks to the fog of war.
 * In the first section, the article gradually draws the reader in-universe. What is it with the capitalization of "Farms", "Oil Tankers", "Oil Platforms" or even "Humans"? Then, in the "user-interface" section, the level of detail in the article and image caption makes the article seem like a gaming guide, which Wikipedia is not.
 * The next disjunction was the "Predecessor and sequels" section. I might have expected something about sequels, but I thought predecessors had already been discussed. The level of detail here is excessive.
 * The final disjunction was the the most disconcerting of all. Having read through the sequels, I figured that I must be at the end of the article, but no, there is a whole new in-universe section on the storyline. Never mind moving the section, deleting it would be an improvement. Short of that, please use the narrative present for plot summaries, and keep them short!
 * Clearly a lot of work has gone into this article, but that can lead to a lack of objectivity. I recommend stepping back and taking in the reactions of no less that 6 reviewers to the article, and rethinking how to do justice (in this encyclopedia) to a very significant game of the 1990s. Geometry guy 20:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Geometry guy. Your comments made me think:
 * So far all the participants are gamers and assume their conventions. I'd be grateful for non-gamer(s) to help on the prose. --Philcha (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Farms", "Oil Tankers", etc. are capitalised in the game. --Philcha (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Such capitalizations are in-universe descriptions: there are several ways to take them out of universe, including quotation. Geometry guy 22:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In all RTS' that I remember, all units and buildings are capitalized. Zoology has its own convention - the "species" part of a species is lower case, all other names are capitalized. --Philcha (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See below. Geometry guy 00:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I regard "buildings are not regarded as assistants in real life" as a travesty of "also need the assistance of other buildings". In real life one craftsman may need the assistance of another, e.g. a sawyer needs a toolmaker. In the Warcraft II manual the section is "Unit Dependencies" and consists of a diagram. --Philcha (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * G-guy, I apologise for the harsh term "travesty". --Philcha (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No offense taken, though apologies are always happily received. My wording was colourful, but this is still an in-universe description of the way the universe of the game works. Geometry guy 22:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as know Blizzard introduced the Unit Dependencies, starting with the Warcraft: Orcs & Humans manual and also used in Starcraft, and I know of no other series that has one.
 * I've produced a few zoology GAs, mainly of phyla, and in all of these the description is the main part of the article, while e.g. phylogeny can be simple or complex or debated, and interaction with humans is a relatively small part of the article although in some cases enormously important - e.g. in Arthropod.
 * In both phyla and RTSs, I think the reader needs a good mental picture as a base for other parts of the analysis. --Philcha (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The comparisons you make are interesting, but invalid: one usage is real world, backed up by RSS, the other isn't. Wikipedia cannot be what you want it to be; it is what it is, an encyclopedia, based (ideally) on the best information available in reliable secondary sources. Geometry guy 00:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Where do you think the article does not use "the best information available in reliable secondary sources"? --Philcha (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you rephrase the question? I am not saying that the sources used are not the best available for the information they provide (they may or may not be). I am saying that the article as a whole is not based upon the best information available in reliable secondary sources. The basis instead includes a lot of primary source material, more than is appropriate for a Wikipedia article, and, perhaps as a consequence, some of the presentation is in-universe. Geometry guy 23:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As a reader I want to make my own mind, in this case about whether the game is good and whether it's the type I like. A lecture may be informative but should not try to make my mind for me. --Philcha (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Blizzard Entertainment has a unique place in the history of games. The company's competition with Westwood Studios which fueled the late-1970 Real-time strategy boom, although Westwood easily out-sold Blizzard. Then Blizzard released Starcraft, which easily out-sold any early RTS game and introduced 3 races that were very different but well-balanced, a feat not previously achieved. Some years later Blizzard released Warcraft III, which also produced races that were very different but well-balanced and which easily out-sold any early RTS game including Starcraft. --Philcha (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Both Blizzard and reviewers have said that the story is part of the company's approach to game design, and IMO to omit this would be slightly WP:NPOV. Some reviewers: Retronauts Presents: Blizzard vs. Westwood from 1UP.com, IGN Presents the History of Warcraft - Retro Feature at IGN --Philcha (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. The article cannot be listed as GA unless an independent reviewer endorses the article as meeting the GA criteria. It seems to me that it is best to close this GAR as "No action" so that renomination at GAN can take place once article editors believe that there is a chance to obtain such an independent endorsement. Comments made here may help editors and reviewers approach that challenge with realism. Geometry guy 00:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)