Talk:2016 League of Legends World Championship/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Mz7 (talk · contribs) 16:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I will give this review a stab. Mz7 (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Patar knight: The article is looking great. I just have one preliminary comment. As I was looking through the "Rosters" section, I noticed some discrepancies between the rosters listed in the article and the rosters listed in the cited sources. I sampled a bunch of them, and they each seem to be missing one or two summoners. For example, compare Cloud9's roster on lolesports.com with the roster in the article. The Wikipedia roster appears to be missing BunnyFuFuu, Westrice, and Winter. I talked with a friend off-wiki who knows more about League of Legends than I do, and he told me the roster on the website may be outdated. Westrice and Winter may have left Cloud9 a while ago, but BunnyFuFuu should be included in the article as a substitute. Admittedly, I myself am not the most familiar with League of Legends, so I was wondering if you could confirm what he's saying or offer some comments. Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Mz7: I think the issue is that the rosters were the same at the time of the tournament, but moves have happened since, and the roster pages were updated, since they are tied to the team and not the tournament. If you follow your Cloud 9 link for example, it mentions their 2017 hopes, which was certainly not there when I used that page for this 2016 tournament. I will look into trying to get webarchived versions, or other sources for the rosters, or failing that, using the game videos as primary sources just for the rosters, since none of them changed during the tournament. Thanks again for reviewing this! ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Patar knight: Sounds like a plan.
I'm happy to help. I should have the full review posted in the next few hours. Mz7 (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Patar knight: Sounds like a plan.
- @Mz7: I think the issue is that the rosters were the same at the time of the tournament, but moves have happened since, and the roster pages were updated, since they are tied to the team and not the tournament. If you follow your Cloud 9 link for example, it mentions their 2017 hopes, which was certainly not there when I used that page for this 2016 tournament. I will look into trying to get webarchived versions, or other sources for the rosters, or failing that, using the game videos as primary sources just for the rosters, since none of them changed during the tournament. Thanks again for reviewing this! ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Review
[edit]Overall, great work. The article certainly looks better than it did when it was first nominated for WP:ITN. The comments on article quality at the ITN discussion were quickly assuaged after you came along and improved it.
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): 
c (OR): 
d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- No copyright violations or unreliable sources, as far as I can tell. There's some reliance on primary sources, especially LoLEsports, but in most cases primary sources are only used to verify mundane, statistical facts, such as the rosters and the brackets. The main issue, as I noted in the preliminary discussion above, is that LoLEsports appears to have overwritten the historical data for the rosters with more current data, instead of keeping historical and current data separate.
I've included a list of roster discrepancies below.The citation style for LoLEsports is inconsistent: should we title it www.lolesports.com or LoLEsports? Also, I would avoid the use of all capital letters in citations – it looks like we're shouting the team names. (Except for initialisms like ESPN of course.)I noticed that the sources don't explicitly have a "final standings" table. The standings appear to have been compiled by looking at when each team was eliminated in the knockout stage, then to how many victories they had in the group stage. It's not a big deal to me, but it may be original research to others. It would better to have a source that shows a table, but it's okay with me if there isn't.
- No copyright violations or unreliable sources, as far as I can tell. There's some reliance on primary sources, especially LoLEsports, but in most cases primary sources are only used to verify mundane, statistical facts, such as the rosters and the brackets. The main issue, as I noted in the preliminary discussion above, is that LoLEsports appears to have overwritten the historical data for the rosters with more current data, instead of keeping historical and current data separate.
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Article is well organized, with information extending from the background of the event, to the event itself, then to the legacy it had.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
The Cinderella story of the tournament
– is it appropriate to call Albus NoX Luna's performance in the group stage a "Cinderella story" in Wikipedia's voice? I'm not sure if it is subjective to call it this or not. If it is, I think it would need in-text attribution (i.e. "ESPN ESports writer Tyler Erzberger described Albus NoX Luna's performance as a 'Cinderella run'"). But I could also see it as an objective description of the situation: that Albus NoX Luna was not expected to advance, but they did.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Once again, great work overall! I've placed this review on hold – feel free to take as much time as you need to respond to my notes. Please see these notes as points of discussion, not requirements that need to be fulfilled in order for the article to become a GA. I would be happy to hear your thoughts if you disagree or need clarification on something.
- Pass/Fail:
- Specific notes
- In the background section
To encourage new viewers to watch, Riot Games set up a second stream specifically for new viewers.
– It's not clear from this sentence exactly how the second stream was different. Did the commentary explain things differently?The original prize pool was $2.13 million contributed by Riot Games, and the final amount will be calculated after fan contributions stop on November 6.
(emphasis mine) – needs to be updated, along with the sentence that follows it, as it is still written in future tense here.
- In the Group stage section:
best of one double round-robin format
– I may be overlooking something here, but it's not clear what this means. I've never heard of "best of one" being a competition format – it implies that you only have to win one game in a series to win the series, in which case, it wouldn't be a series. I would suggest omitting the "best of one" and explaining a little more how a "double round robin" works. I'm gathering that each team plays with each other team in their group twice, and the two with the most victories in each group advance to the quarterfinals, with tiebreakers when there are equal victories. We could also consider adding a new section entirely dedicated to the competition format, if there's enough verifiable information available for it.
- In the Knockout stage section:
- The competition format for knockout stage (i.e. best-of-five series) isn't explained either, aside from a mention in the lead and in the middle of the "Finals" section – you could possibly add this in at the beginning of the quarterfinal section or in a new "Competition format" section.
- It's a little weird that the results of the quarterfinals are presented in the semi-finals section. I understand that they show how the teams entered the semis, but it was confusing to my friend (the one that knows more about LoL than I do). Since moving that paragraph to the quarterfinals section would likely make the semifinals section rather short, we could simply merge the two sections together into a section called "Quarterfinals and semi-finals". I would consider adding more details about the gameplay in the quarters and semis if you're considering an FAC after this.
- In the "Finals" section
- It reads, "
... and a successful defence of their 2015 title.
" – are we going to go with the British spelling "defence"? I thought I'd ask, since the subject is somewhat connected to America, but I'm not sure if it's enough for MOS:TIES.
- It reads, "
Discrepancies in the roster
|
|---|
|
Mz7 (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I apologize as this may be a lot, and I don't want to give you too much (feel free to ignore that 7 day deadline). However, I should mention that the lead section could also be expanded a bit more details – for the wide majority of readers, the lead will be the only thing they read. As a result, it's important for it to provide a summary of all the main aspects of the topic. Perhaps you could add more information about the record-breaking prize pool to the lead and a brief mention of how the event influenced LA 2024's bid for the Olympics. Mz7 (talk) 04:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Mz7, while MOS:LEAD (one of the GA criteria) does call for a summary of all the main aspects of the topic, it also mentions how many paragraphs the lead should contain, which varies by article length (see WP:LEADLENGTH. In the case of this article, which is under 11,000 prose characters, it gives one or two paragraphs, not the four that the article currently has. So the lead should be refactored into fewer paragraphs even as it is fleshed out a bit. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hi BlueMoonset, thanks for the pointer! In this case, the four lead paragraphs were rather short (at least compared with, for example, the four lead paragraphs at League of Legends). It would be easy enough to smush them together and make them simply two longer paragraphs. I've gone ahead and made this change. How do you think it looks? Mz7 (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I think I've addressed most of these concerns. The tables and brackets could be prettier, and there could be more added to various sections (e.g. QF, SF), but I think this should be good enough for GA. Let me know if there's still additional or new points to cover. Thanks, ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Re-review
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- The competition format is now explained in greater clarity. The lead has been fleshed out within the two paragraphs suggested by WP:LEADLENGTH. The quarterfinals and semi-finals sections were combined into one. Background section's description of the prize pool has been updated.
- a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- The stats page at lolesports.com is now being used to verify the rosters, and they all check out, as far as I can tell.
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- The background section has been significantly expanded with additional details about a variety of things, especially how teams qualified.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- No loud NPOV objections from me.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Sure, there are areas that could be improved, but I agree that, overall, the article is in well enough shape to promote to GA status. My thanks to the nominator for his responsiveness and hard work. Mz7 (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
- Thanks for taking the time to review this. Much appreciated! ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)