Wikipedia:Peer review/Warcraft II/archive1

Warcraft II
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it. Thanks, Philcha (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to say a bunch of stuff, but found out it's already been said... in the GA review by no less then five seperate people. For example, you really should follow the style of articles of the same style (reception after plot etc.). Other comments:
 * Any reason for not using Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness in the lead? In fact, it makes the lead awkward just by not doing so because you have to explain the "main game."
 * I think a lot of the last paragraph in the lead is kind of pointless, as it talks a bit too about other games. At the least you could condense and tidy it up and maybe even put in the first paragraph so readers can get some early context.
 * If you are going to FAC, they might knock it for over-use of the game manual as a source; personally it find it ok. Just something to keep in mind.
 * Predecessor and sequels section is almost unneeded. Or rather I should ask why is it there, and why is it so long?
 * A bit of pointless repitition, for example in Reception:
 * "Dark Saga [...] In 1997 Blizzard released Warcraft II: Dark Saga for the consoles Sony PlayStation and SEGA Saturn." -> It's already mentioned in publication, and mentioning release dates in reception is kind of strange.
 * From a structural standpoint there's a lot of really short paragraphs that could use connection. I think this could be a particular sticking point in FAC...
 * Another FAC note: they don't like lists. I think it's ok where it is under user interface, but you turn it into prose (write it out) if you want to be paranoid about FAC.
 * You start out a lot of the initial sentences and sections with "Warcraft II..."; try mixing it up a little more. It can put the reader to sleep.  Same deal with the date intros and publication. Yet again in Dark Saga in reception....
 * Again, just my opinion and I may be wrong sometimes, don't get offended :). RN 06:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, RN. I almost missed this, did I miss it in my watchlist? And don't get offended, when I'm reviewing I also admit that I may be wrong sometimes :-P
 * Re the order of sections, I'm trying to help readers to the important points as quickly and clearly. For most readers, I think the priority is whether the game is good and whether readers may like it - which I think means reception. But readers who don't already know the game will not understand the reception without the gameplay, for example: fog of war is an innovation that makes continous scouting necessary; Ogre Mages with Bloodlust are too powerful. I think readers with some knowledge can navigate for themselves.
 * So storyline gets pushed down. WP:WIAGA used a very clearly subset of MOS, and IMO a Project-specific MOS is also limited the same way. IMO the storyline also depends on the gameplay, as it uses but does not define "Orc" and "Knight".
 * The lead says "main game, Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness". The "main game" or whatever I call it is the one that makes the games reputation, while expansions get lower scores - for example Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness scored low 90% from the critics, while Warcraft II: Beyond the Dark Portal got 87% from MobyGames' composite score. If you can think of a better phrase, I'd be happy.
 * I agree about slimming the lead's para about other WCx games, but I'd do that after doing the corresponding in the main text, as I find it the easiest way to comply with WP:LEAD.
 * I've cut the date from the reception of the consoles.
 * The "really short paragraphs" is intentional. Structuring Your Prose - Web Style Guide 3 and much of Jakob Nielsen's writing, e.g. How Users Read on the Web. One of Nielsen's articles explains that, in addition being impatient, users find screens harder that hardcopy, because screen have much lower dot pitch and therefore look grainy. The Chicago MOS, on which WP MOS is based, is designed for hardcopy. Unfortunately the 2 sides had no contact and so there's no progess. List are also recommended, within reason.
 * I have no intention of going for FAC. In addition to the readability points: it's lottery, as a FAC can be sunk by having to few reviewers either/or the wrong type - either some smart **** ("you haven't used source X, which is hard to find") or some who nitpick on MOS points because they know nothing of the content. I know other editors who have given up on FAC.
 * I'll look at initial sentences and sections with "Warcraft II...". But guess - I've seen recommendations that phrasing should be consistent as synomyns tend to readers.
 * Sorry for being so ... opinionated. You have my full permission to express your feelings about this - and bonus points for jokes. --Philcha (talk) 10:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've slimmed other WCx games.
 * I'm having trouble with 2 "cite error" messages. The citations are in HTML comments, so "cite error" messages should not be produced. If you have an idea about these, I'd be grateful - but please don't spend time on it. --Philcha (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the last two ref errors... it was because in one change you forgot to comment out two refs that were only used in the old/commented-out version of the second/last paragraph of your first change. In general that ref system is a nightmare though, which is why most new articles just new the use the pure inline system instead placing them all in the referencing section (despite how nice it looks). RN 16:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A thousand thanks! Re placing them all in the referencing section, do you mean list-defined references. I knew it was inefficient, as it adds 1 instance of each ref. Do you mean there are more serious problems? --Philcha (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

IIRC we were in the middle of a PR - do you think it could be fun to continue with that? --Philcha (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, I've removed it. RN 22:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I meant do we want to do more about the content, structure, prose, etc. of the article? --Philcha (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)