Wikipedia:Peer review/League of Legends/archive1

League of Legends


Hey there! I raised this article to GA a few months back, and I'm beginning to turn my mind to FA. There are some problems with the article that I know about; for example, I want to find an alternate citation for everything cited to the website Dot Esports, because although it’s a WP:VG reliable source, it’s really on the threshold. More than anything, I'd just appreciate a pair of eyes on it. I think especially useful would be someone who isn't familiar with the game, who can read with a general eye towards things that confuse them. Looking forward to working with you!

Thanks, ImaginesTigers (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Updates
I thought I'd write a brief message to let you know where this article stands.


 * I'm currently overhauling Reception. That's my goal for today (January 2); to add more reviews and use them to paint a more complete description of the game's contemporary critical response. I'm also aware that Release is a mess—I am very much struggling to find sources for the game's release/server infrastructure. If I can't find more coverage, what currently exists might need to be folded into Reception.
 * I think much of the article in a good spot. I've got my eye on Developmental philosophy; it’s quite thin. I'm happy with Gameplay, Player culture, and (now) esports. The lead has also been rewritten to reflect more closely the contents of the article.

Thanks to everyone who has spent time on giving feedback. I really appreciate it. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Alexandra
I'll do this - I have no experience with this game or even the genre, so hopefully that will be of use.
 * Hi there, Alexandra! I've seen your username around. Thank you so much for picking this up — and so quickly. ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

General
 * You should add brief, descriptive alt text to all images, to aid readers with impaired vision.
 * Great point. I'm not at all familiar with images, and mostly left the previous images in place. I'll ask someone for some advice on this. Thanks for pointing it out. ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Are the two gameplay screenshots only meant to illustrate the visual updates to the game? If you use them in the gameplay section, I would expect them to be used to illustrate gameplay, and to have captions that serve that purpose.
 * I can just remove the old image and update the recent caption, I think. ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead
 * 3/4 paragraphs begin with the game's title - would recommend trying to vary things a little bit
 * ✅ This was a silly oversight.


 * Would be helpful to give some context for what Defense of the Ancients is, for those who do not know
 * I'll defer to you on this. I've made a change, but it just feels clunky to me. Any advice would be appreciated. ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I get what you're saying - I made this change to make it a bit more compact.--AlexandraIDV 17:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The fourth paragraph is rather short - would suggest grouping it and the "merchandise and tie-ins" information together.


 * League of Legends received generally positive reviews upon release, - when discussing reception, "upon release" is a filler phrase that can be struck in almost any context, except when used to contrast with pre-release reception.


 * I don't think "League of Legends" is a long enough title to warrant us shortening it to "League".
 * ✅ This was just to reflect what the gaming press often refers to it as (they rarely call it LoL over League), but I'll remove it. ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Gameplay
 * The two teams compete to be the first to destroy the Nexus structure within the opposing base. does not seem to be backed up by any source?
 * From the attached citation by the BBC: League of Legends is a Moba - a multiplayer online battle arena - where two teams try to outdo each other by destroying each other's nexus. There are five players who each become a character, known as a champion. ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * (or being nearby when a teammate does) - I don't think the parentheses add anything here, and would just remove them. It works as part of the main sentence.
 * ✅ Good point. ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Do you buy items from other players? From an NPC? Or is it more of a mechanical thing, like pulling up a menu?
 * There is a "shopkeeper", but it’s just flavour. It’s a menu only available when a player is in base. I'll see if I can reflect this (tagging as working to remind myself). ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * assisting in killing enemy players, - does this just mean "players on the opposing team"? Because if so that's clearer wording (this applies to later uses of "enemy players", "enemy team", etc, too) Update: And also, you don't kill players, you kill their characters!
 * ✅ Think I've fixed these and made them more consistent. ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * enemy structures - similarly, I would say "the opposing team's structures". Also... What are these structures?
 * They're mentioned just a little beneath as turrets. What might be a good idea is trying to get an image of a couple of champions near one of these turrets, actually. I'll edit this a little later to make sure things are defined immediately (and then remove redundancies). ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , and Teamfight Tactics is an auto battler mode for eight players. - this, too, should use a semi-colon. Also, please give some context for what "auto battler" is
 * ✅ You say "this, too" -- was there anyother one? I wasn't sure if I have to define auto-battler given the blue link, but I've done so now. I'll add a reference when I'm done with the rest. ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was referring to how this was part of a list where the previous item used a semicolon, but this didn't.--AlexandraIDV 17:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Each Nexus is located in each team's base, - would change this to a colon
 * ✅ Thanks! ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * typically last between 30 and 40 minutes - would tighten to typically last 30–40 minutes
 * The mode's map, with which it shares a name, received a large-scale upgrade in 2014 - this is related to development, not gameplay.
 * ✅ You're right. Moved! ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * What is an inhibitor?
 * ✅ Good point; it’s not really important to an encyclopaedic overview. ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * ARAM was launched as an official mode in September 2013. - this and the next sentence border on feeling like development, too. Regardless, "official" is a filler word unless used to contrast with fan-made mods etc
 * ✅ Preserved the release date for now, but removed the next sentence. "Official" is gone, too. ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * despite sharing League's patch numbering and reusing some of its assets. some unexplained tech jargon here (and I'm unsure how important this is anyway). Also, avoid shortening the title to "League".
 * Will have to re-develop this section. ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * In September 2019, Riot Games reported that Teamfight Tactics has 33 million monthly players. - this has nothing to do with gameplay.
 * I'll move this all to development! ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Make sure that the retired game modes, that are not playable anymore, are consistently described in past tense.
 * Dominion matches took place on the Crystal Scar map; it was launched on September 26, 2011, and retired on February 22, 2016. An altered version of the Crystal Scar map is used for another featured game mode, Ascension. - does not seem to be backed up by a source
 * By the time you'd read this, I actually removed this section completely. Although they definitely reflect historical aspects of the game, there's no sourcing I'm comfortable including. ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Older champion have been reworked with new character designs, gameplay mechanics, and lore. - champions. I'm also assuming that the champions haven't been completely reinvented visually, so "updated character designs" might be more accurate
 * They are usually very significant updates; the characters remain basically similar (Volibear remained a bear), but their visual language is completely different. Any further advice. ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All right, in that case I think the original wording is fine--AlexandraIDV 17:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I was assuming that this was intended to be written in US English based on the date format, but I also see "criticised" written with an S
 * ✅ This was my bad (I'm a Brit; they split through!) ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Towards the end of 2020, Riot Games was criticised for operating an in-character Twitter account, wherein the fictional character expressed various mental ailments, such as anxiety and imposter syndrome. has nothing to do with gameplay
 * This section was completely redone recently by me because I found the sources to be poor. Champions are an important part of the game, but I'm not really sure what to do. You can compare here. ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

(I will need to take a break here; I will return and look through the rest of the article in a bit)--AlexandraIDV 16:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, Alexandra! It really means a lot.

Development
 * Company founders - would take the opportunity to instead name the developer here since it's the beginning of a section about the development
 * ✅. Should it be wikilinked?


 * Link and introduce DotA the first time it's mentioned in the article body, not the second
 * ✅ I think you were viewing a (slightly) older version of the page when reviewing — this is fixed! ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think writing "game engine" instead of just "engine" communicates things better for a general audience
 * {{done} As above. ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I googled Jew because I was unsure why a QA intern was mentioned so soon and prominently, and apparently he's the executive producer? This needs to be made clear.
 * He's an executive producer of Legends of Runeterra now, a card game by Riot, but started as an intern on LoL. Although he was a QA intern when hired, he did eventually become a senior producer. I've added something to that effect – is it satisfactory? :) ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * were introduced to Jeff Jew. Jew was - would suggest "he" to avoid repeating his last name in immediate succession like this
 * If there exist any freely usable images of the development staff that would be great here - if not, that's understandable
 * I'll look into Beck and Merill! They're the most likely. Failing that, thoughts on an image of Riot's current headquarters? ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * the game's lack of a single-player - jargon, change to "the game's lack of a single-player mode"


 * based on a template where Feak and Mescon could decide - this is confusing. How is that decision-making process a "template"?
 * ✅ To make matters worse, that sentence isn't even corroborated by the citation. I know I read it somewhere, but until I can track it down, that sentence is being cut. ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * League of Legends was formally announced on October 7, 2008, - as opposed to unofficially announced...?
 * ✅ ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * and entered a closed beta - this is tech jargon and needs to either be re-written or otherwise explained further
 * Would it be satisfactory to wiki link to open and closed beta? If not, I can try and give an explanation of what that means. My assumption has (incorrectly) been that you don't need to explain in detail what is wiki-linked. ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Things don't need to be explained to a high level of detail, but since we aim to write for a general audience (not just video game fans) it's helpful to give a little bit of context for terms.--AlexandraIDV 20:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 17 champions were available - MOS:NUMNOTES says to "avoid beginning a sentence with a figure". I would recommend writing "Seventeen champions..."


 * Riot initially wanted to ship the game for its official release with 20 champions, a closed beta is not an unofficial release, so using "official" here to contrast is wrong. I would suggest "its full release".
 * doing some analysis - this feels unnecessarily vague. Were they surveying what other games were offering or something?
 * From the source: . Initially, the idea was to ship the game with 20, but after doing a competitive analysis, Beck and Merrill realized that wasn’t enough, so they doubled the requirement. I've just cut the offending item. ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , which journals have noted as important for the game's longevity. - what journals? I see you're citing Polygon for this, are you just talking about video game publications like that, or academic journals?
 * ✅ this is a typo for journalists, hehe. ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * and said he recognizes that "[Riot Games]'ll never get there" - this is an awkward construction. I would suggest he recognizes that they will "never get there"
 * ✅ Do you think this extract from the interview is okay? I was considering cutting the whole thing about Frank. ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * buffing and nerfing feels kinda jargon-y, and I would suggest describing this as balancing instead
 * ✅ Thanks! ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * In 2014, Ubisoft analyst indicated that the only around 3% of players paid to play the game – significantly lower than the industry standard of 15 to 25%. He argued the game was successful only because of its exceptionally large player base. - do we know the analyst's name? Regardless, "an analyst at the video game company Ubisoft" might work better as we cannot expect readers to know of Ubisoft (and considering how people pronounce their name both as yubisoft and oobisoft, this construction would mean we don't have to choose between "a Ubisoft" and "an Ubisoft"...)
 * I agonised a bit over this because of 'an Ubisoft'', actually. Good suggestion, though; thank you. I've just added his name. ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * the name of the fictional world on which stories take place. - does something take place "on" a world, and not "in" one?
 * If I were on the ISS, I'd definitely say that something happened "on Earth" rather than "in Earth". I'd say "in London", but not "in Earth". ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The extended universe is published - can a universe be "published"? I think "explored" might be better here.
 * ✅ Good catch. ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Cass Marshall of Polygon writes the lore is - give context for what Polygon is
 * ✅ Thanks. ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Link "Lovecraftian" to Lovecraftian horror
 * ✅ Thanks. ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , where the pirate Gangplank clashed with the pirate bounty hunter Miss Fortune in the city of Bilgewater, resulting in his death. - was this event a limited-time thing, and not something one can go back to after the fact? If it is still something one can access, it should be written in present tense - otherwise, it's fine as it is.
 * Temporary event, not replayable. ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

(taking a break again).--AlexandraIDV 17:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Reputation
 * Riot Games has operated a team, Social Systems, to combat in-game toxicity for several years. - Do we know since when?
 * No. Any advice? ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If it's not known, it's fine as is.--AlexandraIDV 00:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Explain "GG"

Release
 * Another instance of calling the game just "League".
 * In July 2012, Xfire released a report stating that League of Legends was the most played PC game in North America and Europe, with 1.3 billion hours logged by players in those regions between July 2011 and June 2012. I was curious about how they had gathered this information, and looked at the source, which says The list was prepared by extrapolating from actual usage data from more than 21 million Xfire members - meaning these are not necessarily exact numbers. I would suggest something like In July 2012, League of Legends was reported to be the most played PC game in North America and Europe, with an estimated 1.3 billion hours played between July 2011 and June 2012, extrapolated from data from users of the instant messaging service Xfire.
 * ✅ Thanks!


 * You're linking Goa twice, and the first link includes two anchor links (and thus doesn't lead to any specific sections)


 * You can unlink Dublin, Taiwan and the Philippines (see MOS:OVERLINK)

Reception
 * Many reviewers noted the game's accessibility and lively visuals compared to other games in the genre. Several points of criticism recurred throughout the reviews, such as an under-developed release. - is this backed up by any source?
 * Yes. Directly below that — GameSpy says it’s very accessible, and IGN notes the lively visuals. I was told to provide an overview there, so that's what I did. Any advice? ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would add the references to those reviews here, too, just to make it clear.--AlexandraIDV 00:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Many reviewers compared League of Legends extensively to rival Defense of the Ancients, and especially writing positively of the game's accessibility. - you switch tense here (compared vs writing)
 * ✅ Thanks! ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It was described by GamerRevolution as an "evolution" and "expansion" of Defense of the Ancient's core gameplay. - I realize you're using the same words as the source, but as two individual words that come across as rather basic, descriptive language, I would consider it fine to remove the quotation marks.
 * ✅ Thanks. ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Italicize USgamer as the title of a creative work. I would also link the title (it redirects to the article about the publisher, where the site is covered)


 * Likewise, italicize IGN and GameSpy


 * Normally we don't cover readers' choice, fan favorite, etc awards, unless they are covered by other RSs.
 * If you mean the USgamer list, it wasn't readers' choice as far as I can tell. You can read about their process via the archive link here, but it was the USgamer staff. ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant the ones mentioned just above the awards table - In 2009, the game won the Reader's Choice award for PC Best Strategy Game in IGN's Best of 2009 Awards,[95] and the PC Gamers' Choice in GameSpy's Gamers' Choice Awards 2009.[96]--AlexandraIDV 00:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

(oops, got invited by friends to play mahjong just now, will take another break)--AlexandraIDV 20:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Esports
 * Aim for gender-neutral language (businessmen → businesspeople)
 * ✅ ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Spin-offs
 * A collectible card game featuring League's champions, Legends of Runeterra, launched in April 2020. Legends of Runeterra, is a free-to-play collectible card game for Windows, Android, and iOS, featuring cross-platform play.[131] The game, which features characters and settings from League of Legends,[132] launched as an open beta on January 24, 2020 for Windows,[133] and for mobile devices with its official release on April 30, 2020.[134] - there's a lot of repeated information between across these sentences
 * ✅ Think I fixed it. ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * A single-player turn-based RPG - write out as "a single-player, turn-based role-playing video game".


 * Consider moving the mention of Ruined King: A League of Legends Story title to the first sentence about it


 * In December 2020, Greg "Ghostcrawler" Street, Vice-President of IP and Entertainment at Riot Games, tweeted that - unless it matters that he said it through Twitter, I would just write "said that" or "announced that"
 * ✅ It was definitely mentioned by the press that it was weird that it was announced on Twitter, but I've removed it. ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * In the footnote about Wild Rift, write out the full name "Nintendo Switch".

In other media
 * The first sentence does not seem to be backed by any source
 * True. That's what pretty much all of it is (the music videos are promotional for the skins, which earn money), but I don't know how to source that, so I'll just remove it. I tend not to like headings which are immediately followed by a subheading, but not much I can do here. ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You have already linked multiplayer online battle arena and COVID-19 pandemic earlier in the article body.

And I believe that is all! Please @ me if you have any questions, so I don't miss them!!--AlexandraIDV 21:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, User:Alexandra IDV. I've posted a few follow-up questions above! In addition to this, I've been told that PR is not the same process as GOCE, wherein this remains open for a while, and others might come along with some additional feedback. Is that accurate? :) In addition, do you have any overall impressions about the article and its readiness for FAC? I'm familiar with the criteria, but I'm still a fairly new editor (August), and any input is really appreciated. ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem! Yeah, PRs can remain open for some time, and more editors may give comments - although I will say that in practice it can take a while to get reviewers, especially a second one, unless they're particularly interested in the topic. I've only done one FA personally (and it was a co-nomination), so I'm not super familiar with the process either; I do think the article is in good condition, though. Sorting out the images and their captions and alt texts is probably one of the highest priority issues right now, before this is ready for FAC.--AlexandraIDV 00:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Working through the images as I speak. There's a bunch on Commons so will be adding at least one more in addition to fixing the captions. Two of the captions have been updated so far, working on the others. Thanks again for everything, and the speed! ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Aza24
Will get to this sometime this week. You may want to add this PR to Template:FAC peer review sidebar (although be sure to remove it from there when the PR is closed) Aza24 (talk) 08:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Aza24! It means a lot. I added it to the sidebar when I started the review — I'll remember to remove it to save you time. ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I don't know how I missed that you had already added it... also, it seems that this PR is getting loads of attention. Because of this, and a busier schedule recently, I think it may be better that I take a look at this during its inventible FAC. Best - Aza24 (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem! Looking forward to it (cautiously). Thanks again, Aza. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Spicy
I'll take a look at this over the next few days. I've heard of the game but have never played it and am not a VG editor. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, Spicy! Looking forward to working with you. ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

A few initial thoughts -
 * Lead
 * Non-gamers will not know what a "Warcraft mod" is... this should be explained in plain language
 * If you look above at Alexandra's feedback, I did try to explain it further, but it was too much for the lead. I'm not sure what the middle ground is here. I would be in favour of not explaining what Defense of the Ancients is there at all, and just mention they aimed to make playing their game easier than playing DotA. Open to suggestions! ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "During a match champions become more powerful by purchasing items and collecting experience points to level up in order to defeat the opposing team." - this seems a bit clunky. Something like "During a match champions collect experience points to level up and purchase items in order to defeat the opposing team" might be better. (I assume the XP makes you level up while the items deal damage/heal you/etc? The original syntax is a bit ambiguous).
 * That's right. I drew from the article on Dota 2 to rewrite it. Here is the previous version. I've implemented your changes, though; agree that it’s better. ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "By July 2012, it was the most played PC game in North America and Europe in terms of number of hours played." is a bit repetitive. Maybe rephrase to "By July 2012, it was the most popular PC game in North America and Europe in terms of number of hours played."
 * ✅ Good suggestion. Thanks! ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 2012 was a long time ago, is it still the most popular?
 * Note: I can only find video game outlets reporting on this. In 2019, Riot reported that the game has eight million regular daily players, making it more popular than the top ten games on Steam combined. Citation here.


 * "Promotional materials for in-game cosmetics has attracted mainstream attention, such as virtual K-pop group K/DA, composed of four champions." - agreement problem, "materials... has". This needs to be more fully explained: non-gamers will not know what you mean by "cosmetics" here or what a virtual K-pop group has to do with it.
 * My fix for this would just be: Promotional materials for the game have attracted mainstream attention [...]. Thoughts? ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Gameplay
 * I'd merge the one-sentence opening paragraph with the next paragraph.
 * ✅ You're right! ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "earning experience and thereby levelling up. Experience is earned by" repetitive... maybe change the next sentence to "Experience points are granted for..." or something
 * What about: champions become stronger and gain additional abilities by earning experience points and thereby levelling up. Two ways of acquiring experience are killing enemy players' champions or being nearby when a teammate does.? ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "Champions also build strength over the course of the game" you can drop "over the course of the game", it's implied, and it's repetitive with the preceding sentences
 * ✅ I'm guilty of doing this in essays, too: "throughout the whole text". ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "spawning" should be explained
 * This is tough. There's so much to explain but it’s so difficult to keep it concise without bloating the whole paragraph up: Each team's Nexus is located by the location in their base where players load into the game or reappear after a death, called the "fountain". How does this sound? ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "Powerful, neutral monsters reside within in the river which separates each team's jungle from the other. These monsters bestow powerful bonuses to the champions that slay them," - repetition of "powerful". "Bestow" strikes me as an oddly literary word to use here.
 * ✅ Made a bunch of changes here (including adding an example). If you think it wasn't necessary, let me know. ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks - a couple more queries -
 * "When they are strong enough," - it's unclear if "they" is referring to the players or the monsters.
 * ✅}
 * "Powerful, neutral monsters reside within in the river " - you previously stated the monsters are neutral, so this doesn't need to be repeated... also, I missed this before, but there's a typo "within in"
 * " increase the durability of minions significantly, as a way to bring matches to a conclusion" - I'm not sure what is meant by "durability" here or how it relates to ending the match. 22:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It makes minions take significantly reduced damage, meaning they can be used to push forward towards the opponent's Nexus. Does that make sense? ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It makes minions take significantly reduced damage, meaning they can be used to push forward towards the opponent's Nexus. Does that make sense? ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "located by the location" - repetitive. "load into the game" is a bit awkward. Maybe you could say "where players appear at the start of the game"
 * Changed. ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "independent farming" - I have no idea what this means
 * Fixed. ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Might want to briefly explain what an "auto battler" is.
 * How does this sound: The game shares no gameplay mechanics with other League of Legends modes; as in other auto battlers, players compete against each other by building a team to be the last one standing. ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "The game shares no gameplay mechanics with League of Legends" - ...but it's a mode of League of Legends, so that can't be right. Would it be more correct to say "it shares no gameplay mechanics with other League of Legends modes" or something along those lines? I think the second part of the sentence should be split into a separate one.
 * Good point. Does the above fix that? ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "Riot Games has released several game modes on a temporary basis." - you say several, but the article only mentions two; are there others? what does "featured" mean here?
 * I can't find reliable sources mentioning the others. There have been many others, but they aren't really covered by the press. I changed "several" to "other", which I think helps! "Featured" is the terminology used by the press; "featured game modes" or "rotating game modes". I've changed it, though. ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Development
 * "DOTA tournament" - you should introduce the acronym after the first use of Defence of the Ancients
 * I don't want to clutter up the lead with an acronym for another game, so it’s probably fine to do it here? :) ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "The two believed it could be a new genre of game, but with the advantage of a significantly lowered barrier to entry, as players previously had to buy a full game and install custom software" - this is a bit awkward, presumably the last two clauses are referring to Defence of the Ancients and not games or the genre in general, but it's not clear from the way the sentence is structured
 * Made sure this was supported by the citation (it is): The two believed the template set by DOTA could become a new genre of game, but with the advantage of a far lower barrier to entry. In order to play DOTA, players had to purchase a copy of Warcraft III and install custom software. Does this make more sense? ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "In 2009, Merill said that, in order to create a variety of distinct champions, the pitching process was available to anyone in the company." - not sure what you mean by "pitching process"
 * Changed to In 2009, Merill said that, in order to create a variety of distinct champions, anyone in the company was able to suggest ideas. Make more sense? ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "most of the team had no prior experience working with other developers as a team" repetitive
 * ✅ Fixed! Thank you.


 * "the game's lack of a single-player mode and free-to-play business model." ambiguous syntax - are you saying that it lacked a F2P business model or that it had one?
 * Good point. Swapped them around. ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "The developer's modern approach to development" repetitive...
 * Fixed. Thanks. ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * " before implementing changes to enact them" isn't "to enact them" somewhat redundant?
 * Yup! Gone. ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "League of Legends is free-to-play, with both champions and various cosmetics purchasable via microtransactions" - purchasable is awkward. Same issue with "cosmetics". How about something like "Champions and decorative items can be purchased using microtransactions"?
 * I've gone for Champions and several forms of customization—such as "skins" that change the appearance of champions—can be purchased through via microtransactions.


 * "that the only around 3% of players" typo
 * Sorry about that. ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Where does money come into the Eternals system? It's not clear from the article.
 * Changed to: In August 2019, Riot Games announced an achievement system, Eternals, to tally champion-specific milestones, available via microtransactions. ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Should "Plot" be part of "Development", or a separate section? (I'm not familiar with the conventions for video game articles).
 * Yeah, this was part of a discussion by some WPVG editors. League has no actual plot, so it made more sense to explain it from the perspective in which the press refers to it (how it changed over the course of development).


 * The plot section opens with "League of Legends is distinct from Runeterra" but you don't really explain what Runeterra is
 * Directly following the name is: [...] Runeterra, the name of the fictional world in which stories take place. It’s just like "Middle-Earth". What do you recommend? ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "players existed diegetically" - needlessly obscure word IMO
 * "In-universe" maybe? Changed! ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "decided to expand the wider setting independently from the game." How did thay do this? Spicy (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Would it be acceptable if I linked to League of Legends? You're right, though; it doesn't indicate it. But they did so via short stories, comics, that sort of thing -- the lore 101 playbook. ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, Spicy. I've left a few follow-up questions (flagged with the Working tag). ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Player culture
 * "and—as of 2018—had operated a team, Social Systems, to combat in-game toxicity for several years" the tense situation here is a bit convoluted. Are you able to state when the team was established? That might help in untangling this a bit.
 * Fixed


 * "The team utilizes neuroscience and machine learning to curb the game's toxicity problems" - this strikes me as too closely paraphrased from the source: "he and his team have been using neuroscience and machine learning in an attempt to curb the rampant toxicity". Moreover the bit about "neuroscience and machine learning" is vague and buzzwordy. I think you could just drop this because you explain how the system actually works over the next few sentences.
 * You're right on all counts. I've changed it!


 * Riot implemented an "Honor system" - does this need to be capitalized?
 * I was just reflecting what the source called it, but I have just removed the name; it’s immaterial (and could randomly change, which would cause problems).


 * "enabling players to indicate to Riot that their teammates and opponents for violating the game's code of ethics" - something's wrong here
 * Fixed.


 * Release
 * "they were happy with the game's player numbers, but admitted that it had fallen from its peak" - agreement - "player numbers is plural"
 * Silly mistake; thanks!


 * Reception
 * "IGN's agreed that the game's launch state was undeveloped" - IGN's what?
 * Fixed.


 * Esports
 * "Alessandro Di Fiore wrote in Harvard Business Review that Riot Games' League of Legends"... you don't need to reiterate that it's published by Riot Games
 * removed a few things from that sentence, too. silly! ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You should ask for a second opinion from someone more experienced with image copyright than me (maybe try WP:MCQ), but I have a feeling there may be licensing issues with File:2016_Summer_NA_LCS_playoff_stage.jpg - the game visuals on the screen are copyrighted and the stage design may be copyrighted as well
 * I've removed the image! It might also need to be removed from the page I took it from.


 * I don't quite understand the point of the "competitive ranking" section; it seems self-explanatory that one has to be good at the game to become a professional player
 * Spicy: Do you think it’s better-served where I've moved it to? Under Gameplay but before Summoner's Rift. ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Sourcing
 * Ref [24] - Express is a tabloid (see WP:RSP) and wouldn't be considered a FA quality source
 * ✅ Sorry about this; huge oversight. As noted elsewhere, I wish there were non-VG sources available, but for now I've replaced it with an article by PCGamer.com, which is on WP:VG/RS. ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * [71] is a Forbes contributor piece which is a self-published source (see WP:FORBESCON); this wouldn't be considered RS unless you can show that the writer is a subject matter expert
 * ✅ This entire heading needs overhauled. Some of the sources will remain at the end, but that will not. I'm going to reach out to WT:VG for advice on sourcing player numbers. I've replaced Forbes with the PCGamesN source from earlier. ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Almost all sources are from video game sites or the popular press. That's to be expected for an article on a video game and in many cases is perfectly fine, since many games only have that sort of coverage. But LoL is an important enough game that I'd expect there to have been some academic work on it. Have you looked for coverage on JSTOR, in books, etc? This would be relevant to FAC criterion 1c (comprehensiveness).
 * Replied to this below, but yeah, unfortunately this is the case. I have been really thorough in my research. It sucks; I don't know what to do, and this is my major concern going into FAC. Because of this, I've been actively removing every reference to Dot Esports and the Polygon subpublication, The Rift Herald. I want them to be unimpeachable. Those exist on WP:VG/RS, but I don't feel like they should be there, and they'd be interrogated under FAC conditions. ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Follow up: there's now a fair few references from papers. Some of it is outdated, but I've clarified with additional citations in those instances. Thanks for pressing me. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 04:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

More to come, Spicy (talk) 18:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for these, Spicy. Christmas is taking up my time today but I really appreciate the time you've spent so far, and look forward to implementing/discussing your changes! RE: the sourcing, yeah, unfortunately there is a huge absence of reliable sources about League. Development contains an article from The Washington Post; ESPN and BBC Sport feature in Gameplay; and the Esports section contains a citations from the NYT among others. But most mainstream outlets – if they discuss League – only discuss the game's impact on esports. JSTOR returns no real results. The article previously contained a heading titled Research, but it was really not useful, and not real research. I've also trawled around the internet for reliable books about League, or the MOBA genre generally, especially because I was hoping to make a 'Legacy' section. Nothing. It’s really frustrating, but I don't know what to do. :( Will reply (to)/implement your specific suggestions when I have some free time later tonight (or tomorrow at the latest). Thanks so much, again. I really appreciate you taking the time. ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Try Google Scholar? You'd be looking for literature reviews in these sources—what the researchers say about other important research (i.e., as secondary sources), rather than just hand-picking a few studies and citing their original conclusions (primary sources). Anything inaccessible can be requested at either WP:RX or WP:VG. (not watching, please )  czar  01:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Czar: Google Scholar can result in some really low-quality literature. For that reason, I was really hesitant to try it out, but you were right. There was a bunch of usable stuff there (I have access through my institution)! I've supplemented the Gameplay section with it, and finally found a way to reliably cite the game's competitive ranking system (I refuse to use Dot Esports). I wasn't sure where to put it, but the source connected it to esports, so that seemed reasonable. There's an argument that it belongs in Gameplay maybe, but I don't think so — ranked play is identical to unranked while in-game. I still have a few good pieces of criticism I'd love to include, but there's nowhere to put them (yet). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 04:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Many sources have accessdates that are 3, 4, 5 years in the past... if you are planning to take this to FAC you should go through all the sources to ensure they verify the content, that the links are still live, etc. and update the accessdates accordingly.
 * That's all for now. I'll respond to your follow-up questions later. One final comment, the prose could use some general tuning-up before going to FAC; I'm not in a position to do this as I'm not a great copyeditor to begin with and I'm not familiar with the source material, but hopefully some of the VG editors you've reached out to will feel up to the task. Spicy (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments from David Fuchs
Since you asked I'm going to focus on reviewing this article like it were at FAC. I wouldn't (and many don't) break it down into actual categories or criterion, as is more common in GANs, but I'll roughly put what I'm referring to in each section to make it easier.
 * Hi, David Fuchs. Thanks a lot for taking the time to do this—it means a lot.


 * General organization (c. 1b–1e, 2a–2b, 4):
 * The gameplay section is a bit weird for me. It feels like the multiple subsections are getting in the way, especially since they're so short, and also prevents them from being adequately summarized (since it's clear the non Summoners Rift modes are not as important.)
 * I am not sure what to do about this. I agree that the multiple smaller sections are frustrating, but for comprehensiveness, it’s very difficult to ignore the other modes. One possible solution is removing Teamfight Tactics from Gameplay and putting it into Spin-offs; ARAM and the rotating game modes could come under a heading to the effect of, "Other game modes". What do you think?


 * "Reputation" seems like a weird heading choice versus "Player culture" or similar.
 * ✅ Good idea.


 * Prose (c. 1a):
 * A major point of the prose criterion for FAC is engaging and professional prose; what this generally means as a good rule of thumb is focusing on what your sentences are trying to say, and make them as concise and clear as possible. The benefit is there's less prose to ken, it avoids issues with neutrality/weasel words, and it's easier for a layperson. It's tough even for me as it's not how I "normally" write, but I encourage you to look through Tony1's writing exercises for general tips.
 * About two months into the game's development, Beck and Merill recruited Steve Feak, designer of Defense of the Ancients, and Steve Mescon, administrator of the support team,—I think you need to make it clear that Feak is not the sole designer of DotA, and it's unclear what you're talking about with regards to Mescon (I assume you mean he's a member of the DotA support team, but it's unclear.)
 * ✅ I've reformatted this sentence; you were definitely right.


 * There's a lot of what I'd term weasel-wording throughout, where statements are made that either aren't properly referenced or attribute a single source to a broad consensus without evidence.
 * I think part of my task here is just learning what they are. Your examples are really helpful, so thanks again!


 * E.g. Since its release in 2009, League of Legends has been regularly updated, which journalists have noted as important for the game's longevity.—is this really in dispute? If it isn't, why is it phrased like "journalists have noted"? If you are attributing it to someone, you should say which journalists.
 * It’s mentioned by two of the articles cited in that section, yeah. I'll come back to this one.


 * The playerbase of League of Legends has a longstanding reputation of negative and abusive in-game behavior, referred to in gaming media as toxicity—this is another instance where no one seems to be disputing LoL has a toxicity problems. You end up with a clearer and better sentence with something like League of Legends' player base has a longstanding reputation for "toxicity"—negative and abusive in-game behavior.
 * I've rewritten this section, with tags to indicate the intended structure. Would it be a good idea to do this for the whole article, both for others reading and myself?


 * Along those lines, there's a lot of topic sentences of paragraphs that need reconsidering. Professional players of the game have generated mainstream media attention. doesn't tell us a lot, especially since generating media attention is the only reason you should be talking about this stuff in a Wikipedia article in the first place. Axe all the "has generated commentary"-type mentions in this article.
 * Where possible, I'd look to minimizing the use of quotes. It can tend, especially when covering development information, to feel a bit like puffery.
 * There aren't any quotes in development that I can see, but this is definitely an issue in some places in the particle. The Reception section needs larger scale work to fix this, too.


 * It's always tough when you're dealing with a lot of dates, but where possible always avoid "On Date X, in Year Y"-type repetitions when describing updates and player numbers. It's what I call the "bad band Wikipedia page problem", where you don't end up with coherently organized prose versus a list of chronologically-presented factoids.
 * Yeah, this one's tough.


 * The reception section needs a fair amount of work. I'd suggest focusing on the initial reception first, then detailing the changes. If there's more along the lines of the Venturebeat mention, direct comparison to other MOBAs would be useful.
 * Agree. I think I can organise this to be much more thorough. The main issue is a lack of reviews from the time of release. I'll ask at WP:VG.


 * The esports section bounces from 2017 to 2014 to 2019 in as many sentences.
 * Lyrics in the 2018 song "Masterpiece" by Swedish musician Basshunter quote lines from League of Legends.[140]—this doesn't actually relate to the rest of the paragraph.
 * This wasn't me. There's a user who added it back after I removed it, and keeps doing so... I've removed it again.


 * The group will appear on stage at the 2020 League of Legends World Championship to promote an EP scheduled for release in November 2020.[148]—outdated
 * References (c. 1c, 1d, 2c):
 * FA requires not just reliable sources, but higher-quality ones—using the best ones available for the field. In that frame of reference, I think you should carefully consider the sources such as Express.co.uk, Truegameheadz, MMO Report, Akshon Esports, Investvine, Celebmix, and similar.
 * These are all in the section about player count, I think. I'm really struggling to find non-primary, reliable sources about the game's size. Those sites were there when I started editing the page. I wanted to delete the section, and make it a subheading of reception, but I got some blowback about that. Almost everything there is unreliable, though. I've just culled the offending paragraph.


 * Along those lines while the Rift Report has a decent pedigree coming as a partnership between reliable sources, the nature of it being what it is, it's probably best to minimize use, if for no other reason than it's likely to cover stuff more closely than Wikipedia should and that can distort coverage.
 * I can remove it, for sure!


 * Some inconsistency with italicizing website names (mmo-report, The PA Report, Game Revolution, etc.) and some citations have italicized titles and/or missing website/publisher fields. Others appear to be swapped (archive.vn for the website instead of Game Revolution.) Hollywood reporter is given as www.hollywoodreporter.com when almost all other refs don't include the prefix. All this needs to be made consistent.
 * Working on this. Thanks for telling me about Holywood Reporter and Archive.vn. ImaginesTigers (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * is a Forbes contributor, and not a reliable source unless it meets WP:SPS.
 * This was removed a few days ago, I think. Were you looking at an old version of the page?


 * Will perform a spot-check on sources later.
 * Still working through this, but some decent progress has been made. Sections which require re-structuring are mainly Gameplay & Reception (I think).

-- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Media (c. 3):
 * File:League of Legends Screenshot 2018.png needs a better fair use rationale.

Comments from Le Panini

 * Lead
 * I'd make the lead four paragraphs, to cover the article in more detail.
 * Development is (mostly) unmentioned here. Any key points from the development section?
 * Honestly? Not really. I think the lead is already quite big because of gameplay, and it’s very difficult for me to chop it down any further without distorting things. Their initial goal (to create a standalone MOBA game) is the most notable part of the development process, I think, and the only part that really deserves mention in the lead. There is, I think, an argument that the game's reputation of a toxic player culture is significant enough, though, now that you've got me thinking about the lead. Four paragraphs might be a good idea to incorporate that.


 * Reception
 * "Several points of criticism recurred throughout the reviews, such as an under-developed release." However, there is only one citation here. Were there several points, or just IGN?
 * "Some reviews highlighted issues." This sentence feels really bland to me. I'd use this beginning sentence kind of like a "hook" to describe what the paragraph is going to cover.
 * I'll just say that this section is in total flux, and it can basically be ignored. It is—by far—the worst part of the article. I'm struggling to find straightforward 'reviews' right now (from 2009/2010 and modern).


 * Awards and nominations
 * According to WP:MOS/VG, "Noteworthy awards and nominations that contribute to the overall reception should be documented in prose in this section." This section, other than the table, simply says "Over its lifetime, League of Legends has won a variety of awards for both the game and its esports events." What awards is the game recognized for? What notable games did they lose to? Win to? Maybe summarize the history of esport awards, as this is what the game is known for.
 * I'd never seen that before—thanks a lot for pointing me towards that. One thing I'm worried about is that the article is already quite big. There's an existing article dedicated to League of Legends in esports, and by focusing on the rewards the game has received for esports, it feels like it’s drifting away from the main topic: the game. The game has received notable attention for the production values of Worlds tournaments, but I feel like it might drift in focus if I make the Awards section about that. Otherwise, the rewards are pretty unremarkable. Open to any suggestions!
 * You don't need to make the entire section about this, but just be sure to mention it. Maybe something like Undertale would be good here. Summarize the overall reasons on why it received awards, and mention other awards that can't go in the table. Le Panini  [🥪] 19:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Miscellaneous
 * I would move the "Release" section above "Player Culture", next to development. These two are more closely related than Development and Player culture are.
 * Player culture has a lot of information about Riot's attempts (as developers) to deal with toxicity, so I think it is related to development. That said, I think I agree with you here and will jiggle things around once I've updated Reception.

Le Panini [🥪] 18:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for having a look, Panini! It means a lot.
 * PS. I pronounce your name, in my head, as "Lee", and even have to delete "Le" every time I try and refer to you with an abridged name. I am simply not cultured enough for la langue francaise (I'm too lazy to find the cedilla). ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not French, oddly enough. I've got my reasons for my username, which I'll only reveal if I get interviewed on the Wikiproject Video games newsletter. Say my name as you prefer. Le Panini  [🥪] 19:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hehe, I didn't think so—your profile says American. From now on, I will simply abbreviate your name as "The". ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Further look into Reception
 * Put an inline citation next to the Metacritic prose
 * This first paragraph seems to be unorganized. First it talk about comparisons to DotA, then difficulty, then back to DotA, and then character design. Among these reviews, is this the only occasion where the character design was enjoyed? If not, then it should have its own section. If so, I don't think putting it here is the best option; when there are a couple of oddball positives, I stick similar connections together into one paragraph. Putting similar positives together results in better flow of transition, rather than "huh, where did that come from?" I'd move the character design to the second paragraph.
 * Hi, Panini! I might be wrong, all of those reviews are talking about the game in comparison to DotA. I think it’s probably probably not signposted well enough. The game's difficulty was a problem, unless players were fans of DotA. The characters were lively and colourful (compared to their competitors, which is me trying to avoid saying DotA again). Agree that it feels disjointed because they all compare it to DotA in different ways. I'll work on this -- thanks for flagging it up!


 * Defense of the Ancients has a couple of issues prose-wise. It's given the "(DOTA)", which is used throughout development, but Reception uses "DotA" instead. It's also typed out in full at the beginning of Reception, and could be abbreviated.
 * I was so sure I retroactively put them all back! I didn't, because I'm silly. They're all fixed now. Re: using abbreviations the whole way through, I did check the MOS on this, and it doesn't mention when to expand and when not to expand. For one like this, my gut feeling is that—if it’s a separate heading—I should define it again. People don't really read Wikipedia articles chronologically. They pick a heading and jump around, so I want to catch the people who didn't read Development, if that makes sense. Do you think that's bad practice? It just seems reader-friendly to me, but open to changing it.


 * "Many reviews noted the game's longevity and replay value, with three publications using the word "addictive" in their reviews: the written portions of Eurogamer and GameSpot, and Kotaku's headline." This would be much simpler being "Eurogamer, GameSpot, and Kotaku's headline noted the game's longevity and replay value as being addictive." This could even dial down to "Reviewers noted the game's longevity and replay value as being addictive." if you're being feisty. This shortened statement would make room for the character design statement, which fits as it is something praised among critics that isn't in-depth enough to have its own paragraph.
 * Thanks! This is a good way to abridge. Still worried about moving character design, because it does feel important to me that it’s lively compared to the other games (if you look DotA and LoL up, you'll see what they mean). Looking forward to your feedback on this one; I definitely am open to moving it.


 * "He said it was unacceptable given that they granted a competitive edge.[79] He wrote that the launch was also criticized as under-developed." I'd move the citation down to the second sentence.
 * Done! Thanks.


 * I don't see the necessity of listing out the name of each reviewer, such as " Crecente, Butts, and Gamezebo's Jim Squires all said matchmaking suffered from long wait times,". I'll let czar explain.


 * "I see little gained from naming the review authors for each source inline. I'm not going to remember names like Meija if you invoke the name later. If anything, as a reader, I'll remember the opinion by the attributing news outlet. It's more telling to say XYZ praised the combat mechanics while ABC did not (with multiple citations) to then set up a discussion of how those thoughts compared. Varying the sentence structure can still leave the text reading as "A said B" (WP:RECEPTION) until the opinions can be juxtaposed (without becoming original research) to make a point about the game's overall Reception."


 * The original draft had me doing that, but Fuchs' recent FA doesn't do this (I'm following David and ferret 's advice... EDIT: suddenly I can't remember if it was ferret... EDIT EDIT: it was Lee). It was explained to me as, the outlet didn't write the review—the reviewer did. Another issue here is that, given that the game was re-reviewed by many of these outlets, I think it obfuscates that there's different people writing them. Also, coming from an academic background, it’s strange to me not to attribute people's creative material to them. I get that they were paid by a publication, but it’s still their words and ideas being expressed. It’s probably just preference? If FAs are getting through in either direction and there's nothing in the MOS? Thanks so much for the feedback so far. Gonna work on fixing the first paragraph tomorrow since it’s the biggest amount of work and I'm sleeeeeepy. Looking forward to the rest! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's preference, not MOS. Adding reviewer names almost always adds needless length to sentences that already tend to be clunky with "X said Y" writing. The reader is not remembering reviewer names if they're referenced later in the section. They barely remember the outlet's name. Reviews are done on behalf of the outlet. It's common to refer to it as the publication's review. (Also we're writing for a general audience, not an academic audience. It's not like we use APA to namedrop authorship each sentence.) (not watching, please  if needed)  czar  23:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflictHi czar!) I probably didn't word this correctly. Those sentences that combine similar critiques don't need to have their names and sites listed, but if you're mentioning a specific review, go ahead and name em'. And I would say it depends on the writer's manual of style; some writers sometimes add "This source gave the game an 8.5 out of 10, saying..." in front of every review. Some only say the news site for everything, like, no names at all. If you'd like to understand my MoS of writing Reception sections better, I wrote a "professional yet coloring book-like guide" on my way of formatting here. If you're off for the night, I'll wait a bit before I continue my comments. And now edit conflicting-yet also responding to czar, I see people refer to the writing style as if "It's a smart 14 year old that knows nothing about the subject." Le Panini  [🥪] 23:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay; I've jiggled things around a bit, and only used a reviewer's name when it’s needed (to distinguish from later re-reviews). Thoughts? :] — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It definitely looks much better than before. I'll have comments in a little while, as I'm busy at the moment. Le Panini  [🥪] 21:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Take all the time you need :] Hope everything's alright! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'm back. And I am happy to have you back! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Reception madness
 * GamesRadar+, GameSpot, and PCGamer should be listed in the Reception table.
 * Wow. I can't believe I didn't put them in there. Thanks! ImaginesTigers (talk)


 * Additionally, Eurogamer is in the table, but is never used in prose. If they don't have anything good to say, leave it out of the article entirely. It'd be much better to use it, though.
 * Added! I remember writing Smith's name, but I must have lost it in the edit (or it only existed in a prior version).


 * "Addictive" is quotes, which I find odd. It's not gamer jargon or anything, nor anything specific. ImaginesTigers (talk)
 * "with several reviewers indicating that key features were missing." Did the reviewers give any examples? Could you list some? The stuff after this are comments saying how this is bad, but its never specified what is missing in the first place.
 * I've added a few extra examples! ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "IGN's Steve Butts concurred, referencing the poor state of CrimeCraft's release earlier in 2009." There should be citation after this.
 * These are both Butts, and I didn't want to double up, so I've changed full stop to a semi-colon and re-written the sentence a bit :] ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * But overall, excellent job! Similar statements are summarized and sections are organized. I think I do see some duplicate references throughout, such as refs 72 and 73 and refs 70 and 74. Maybe check the references for these. I'm not watching this page, so please ping me after responses. Le Panini  [🥪] 19:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I had a look, and I think I've only duplicated when it’s felt important for clarity (who said what in each instance). If there's any issues with it, I hope you'll grill me on them at FAC! For now, you've done so much, and I'm really thankful for it. Thanks, Panini. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment from Spy-cicle
Surely, the references for the director/producers/writer in the infobox can be shifted out of the there and into the main body, assuming they are already in the main body (which should be) per WP:INFOBOXREF? Also a lot of the references for the website/publisher parameters (like BBC News, Polygon, The Verge, Kotaku, ESPN.com which could probably just be shortened to ESPN, IGN, GameSpot, etc) are missing wikilinks. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 19:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for the edits you made! So the only reference in the infobox that's also in the article is Graham McNeill's hiring (since it’s relevant to their shift in direction). But for all the others, it’s unfortunately not mentioned. Riot's founders (the game's "creators", sort of) no longer actively work on the game. It’s easy to find interviews with people that state their position at Riot, but no individual person at Riot is significant enough to be mentioned in the article, for the most part (brutal, I know).
 * RE: wiki-linking, I was told that it didn't matter if they were wiki-linked so long as it was consistent throughout the whole article. I'm least comfortable with references, so if there's anything you can point me to on that front then I'll fix them all tomorrow!
 * I'll strike McNeill's citation from the infobox right now. The others I'll try and see if there's a way to get them into the article. There's a good chance there won't be, though. Is that okay? I'll also abridge ESPN. Thanks a lot for taking the time, Spy-cicle! Means a lot. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)