Wikipedia:Peer review/Dota 2/archive1

Dota 2
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review due to the sudden spike in information available for Dota 2, a fact that has not been realized for approximately ten months now. Despite the lack of information thus far, this page has sustained a high level of traffic and quality, with a C rating. Mind you, this was achieved with virtually nothing to work with, aside from official releases and testimony. Since I created this page, I have been eagerly looking at how to improve its quality, always asking for input from senior editors and the community for direction. Things have become quite a bit more complicated, however, as I am finding some difficulty in conveying the new material into a form that I feel comfortable with.

I believe this page will not only have the opportunity to become a GA, but a FA, much like the original Defense of the Ancients. Please share your input, what is needed and what can be improved. Thanks. D arth B otto talk•cont 16:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to also add that I have an image from the game play prepared, as it's standard for good articles to have that, but I'm just clearing something up. D arth B otto talk•cont 17:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've incorporated the elements you fellows requested. Could you tell me what more I need for it to be a FA? I'm going to nominate it for a GA soon enough, but I want to know what will be needed for the final milestone. D arth B otto talk•cont 22:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe my questions have been answered and this page's flaws have been sorted out, so I'm closing this review request. Thank you. D arth B otto talk•cont 18:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

-- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments by David Fuchs
 * doing Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The anonymity thing prolly isn't that important to put in the lead; Steam, Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X could probably use explanatory text (operating system, content delivery service, whatever) to make it clearer to non-game fans what they are (yeah, they really should know what Windows is but hey, make it accessible.)
 * The second paragraph doesn't really flow well as a description of the game; rather than focusing on "Dota 2 is like DotA but", you should probably treat it more as a standalone game so it's more accessible; explain what the objective is, how players control heroes, use items, etc, and what basic modes are available.
 * File:Dota 2 Game.jpg could probably be a bit larger, since we can't figure out anything from such a small shot. Although we might have to wait for better screenshots anyhow.
 * Going off the above, the details about how the heroes and scenarios are based off what exists in the current map might be better put in a development section, leaving a more straightforward gameplay description. There's already some of that in that section, but we don't need to do a game-guidish blow-by-blow of "what's different".
 * I'm not sure the trademark concerns deserve their own section (also the "there has been a lot of criticism"-ish start seems weasely.)
 * You should prolly think about replacing the refs from GosuGamers.net and Joystiq with more ironclad reliable sources.

Lead Gameplay Development Sources Image Not too far away from GAN. — Mr. V (t – c)   05:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments by Mr. V
 * Inlines are unnecessary in the lead.
 * This is naggy but you might get dinged later: for wikilinks, best to link once in the lead for each one (the first time it appears), once again in the body (also the first time it appears) and once in the infobox if necessary.
 * What's an Ancient Fortress?
 * The Radiant and the Dire - do they mean anything more than geographic starting location?
 * There's one source for the entire section. It's early in development but there's quite a bit there from one source.
 * Link the gaming terms, such as "level". You may have readers who have no idea what these terms mean.
 * Looks good overall, but make sure that the trademark section doesn't turn into a "he said, she said" type deal.
 * The sources here don't look bad (although I've never heard of "GosuGamers"), but an article can crash and burn at FAR if the sources are not perfect. Make sure they're all reliable. Check the video game source page for more info. More sources will appear as the game gets closer to release.
 * More details in the caption. Not sure what the image is illustrating exactly.
 * Can you make it bigger?