Wikipedia:Peer review/RuneScape/archive1

RuneScape
I nominated RuneScape for Good Article, along with three other articles: Chelsea F.C., Criticism of Microsoft and Gmail. Of the four articles, this was the only one which failed. Someone else had previously nominated RuneScape for Featured Article, but it failed, and several objections were raised. I hope to collaborate with other editors to address the objections raised so RuneScape can become a Good Article.

One of the main objections was the Criticism section. At the time of the failed nomination, the section was too short. I have since expanded it, and several others have expanded and improved the section. The section has been criticised for lacking references. However, most of these criticisms are player opinions of the browser-based game, and are unlikely to be documented in reliable sources.

Other parts of the article have also been criticised for the lack of references/citations. I think we should try and find some sources. Besides information published by Jagex on the main site, external reviews and news reports will be appreciated. Although fansites and player reviews are not reliable sources, they do have some merit.

Stability is another major issue which caused this article's Good Article nomination to fail. Things improved after semi-protection, but after it was lifted, the vandals returned. I propose that we permenantly semi-protect it, or semi-protect it at least for the duration of the Peer Review and the Good Article nomination. Most high-profile articles are vulnerable to vandalism and edit wars unless semi-protected. With the article semi-protected, established editors can work on turning RuneScape into a Good Article without worrying about vandals.

The article was criticised for having various POV issues and on occasions sounding like a how-to guide. I hope to work with others on resolving these issues, to ensure the article remains encyclopediac. It is currently comprehensive, but the information is badly presented. Hopefully, after the article is semi-protected, we can peacefully collaborate to clean up this article.

Other unresolved issues involve fansites and subarticles. The administrators decided that only RuneHQ should be listed. However, in the Neopets article (which I have also sent to Peer Review hoping to make it a Good Article), there are three major fansites listed in the appropriate section: PPT, Nothing But Neopets, and NeoItems. As an experienced Neopets user, I agree that these are the three major Neopets fansites. For RuneScape, most will agree that Tip.it and Sal's Realm are also among the major fansites, as well as perhaps RuneVillage and Zybez. In fact, other editors (some anonymous) have agreed with me and are re-adding links to those fansites. In addition, a link to a major RuneScape forum would be nice. Meanwhile, others have criticised the sub-articles, mostly for sounding like how-to guides, and being of much lower quality compared to the main article. I propose we work on them as well. Having played RuneScape since early 2004, I can certainly help with fact-checking and contributing information in an encyclopediac manner.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It can be improved by removing adding spaces before units. This is easy with a single click on a 'units' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. bobblewik 16:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The Construction bit needs a bit of work, but that is to be expected since Construction was just released. In time, it should become a featured article, assuming vandals don't vandalize the article again (who would do that to such a great article?)--Death motor 05:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)