Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Dota 2/archive4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dota 2

[edit]
Previous peer review
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has been lingering on the verge of Featured Article status for what seems like ages now, but has not received thorough or specific enough input to allow us to cross that threshold. With every possible detail addressed on the talk page, it is time to open up a new peer review to help us grind out any possible inadequacy. JimmyBlackwing, CR4ZE, shall we begin? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 22:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I've played it before." I have not played Dota 2. I humbly suggest that I am in a better position to judge how informative the map is "to those who don't play the game".
"I fail to see what the minimap adds for the average reader.... How can such an abstract image add meaningfully to the reader's understanding of Dota 2?" The map provides an excellent overview of where the opposing bases and towers are in relation to each other, and how the lanes connect everything.
"There's no precedent for including minimap screenshots in FAs." That's irrelevant to this article, unless you can demonstrate that there has been a clear consensus to exclude such maps. You have not done this.
"to cover them in detail is blatant WP:GAMECRUFT." Adding a photo of a map is hardly "covering them in detail". Moreover, none of the 13 points in the guideline that you quote prohibit the map. Your characterization of the map as "blatant gamecruft" is ridiculous.
"Why would we include a minimap shot in Dota 2 but not in an RTS FA?" If an RTS game always uses the same map, and that map is critically important in the gameplay and strategy, then there is an excellent case for including a map in that article. If you have a specific game/article in mind, please direct me to it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Minimaps are critically important in all strategy games. But that's beside the point. A minimap is too abstract to be meaningful without a gigantic legend, and, with a legend, it's gamecruft. I never said that the minimap was gamecruft—I said that "to cover [a minimap] in detail" is gamecruft. And you need that much detail to give something this abstract meaning. Why else do you think that RTS articles haven't included minimap shots in the past? There is no happy medium. The map has to stay cut. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2¢: Dota 2 and dotalike concepts of lanes/ancients are better explained through images than through text. This said, you could easily make a free use mockup (rather than a fair use screenshot) of the playing field, as one would of a football or another sports field. With my cursory understanding of Dota, you'd want to show the major features of the map (lanes, towers, any specific physical landmarks) and nothing near the level of detail in the previous minimap ordeal. If you cannot do it yourself, try WP:GL/I. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar ♔ 05:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Minimaps are critically important in all strategy games. But that's beside the point." It's a highly relevant point. "Critically important" details certainly should be considered for inclusion in a Wikipedia article.
"A minimap is too abstract to be meaningful without a gigantic legend, and, with a legend, it's gamecruft." Utter rubbish! The previously-included image had a legend that noted the position of bases, towers, and a few other notable features. I suppose that you characterize that as a "gigantic legend". Even this so-called "gigantic legend" does not fit any of the 13 criteria listed at WP:GAMECRUFT. Yet you persist in using this label.
"Why else do you think that RTS articles haven't included minimap shots in the past?" Despite your presentation of this very weak, circumstantial evidence as a rhetorical question, I note that you ignored my first criterion: if the game always uses the same map. From the time that I played Command & Conquer: Red Alert many years ago, I remember that each level had a different map. I suspect that remains the case for other RTS games. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The old legend was ludicrous—like something out of a Prima guide. Twenty-eight points of interest? Really? In a general interest encyclopedia article? Obviously falls under criteria 3 and 4: "Detailed instructions"; "Strategy guides and walkthroughs". We aren't here to teach people the 28 major locations on Dota 2's minimap. It's shocking to me that you would even try to defend the legend's size. As for the side points—irrelevant. Wavedashing is critically important in Super Smash Bros. Melee, but do you see a detailed breakdown of it in the article? No; it isn't even mentioned. It's impossible to play Flight Unlimited II without a working knowledge of flight instrument arcana, and yet those instruments are discussed only in passing. Likewise with minimaps in strategy games: they can be mentioned, certainly, but decoding their details is best left to a manual or strategy guide. Whether the contents of the minimap change has absolutely no bearing on anything.
  • In any case, I'm willing to accept Czar's proposed compromise: a stripped-down representation of the playing field, simple enough that it can be described without a legend. This would support the average reader's understanding of Dota 2 without veering into strategy guide ridiculousness. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What are your thoughts on this compromise, Axl? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 20:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The old legend was ludicrous." Rubbish. The old legend was fine. Indeed you are the only person who has complained about it.
"Obviously falls under criteria 3... : "Detailed instructions"." No instruction at all is provided in the legend, let alone "detailed instructions".
"criteria 4:... "Strategy guides and walkthroughs"." The guideline states "Basic strategy concepts are helpful to understand the game, but avoid details about how to solve puzzles and defeat certain foes." The position of towers and lanes is certainly a basic strategy concept. Yet the legend provides no details on how to defeat the enemy team.
"We aren't here to teach people the 28 major locations on Dota 2's minimap." We are here to provide general encyclopedic information about notable topics.
"It's shocking to me that you would even try to defend the legend's size." LOL, you are easily "shocked". I am equally "shocked" by your misinterpretation of WP:GAMECRUFT.
"As for the side points—irrelevant." I have no idea which "side points" you refer to. Each of my points was a direct response to one of your points.
"Super Smash Bros. Melee... Flight Unlimited II." As I previously mentioned, that is weak, circumstantial evidence.
"I'm willing to accept Czar's proposed compromise: a stripped-down representation of the playing field, simple enough that it can be described without a legend." I suppose that a stripped-down map is better than no map at all. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With that out of the way, @DarthBotto: my Lightning prose review is now complete. I'll get to this article today or tomorrow. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JimmyBlackwing:, the map featured 28 landmarks, including the towers, the Ancients, the fountains, the shops and Roshan. Since you want a simplified version, what would you like featured? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 22:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only what's necessary to depict the playing field: the lanes, the Ancients and probably the towers. Perhaps Roshan's location could be included because of its strategy importance. See the visual design of [1] or [2] for inspiration. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The very first sentence of the article is "Dota 2 is a 2013 multiplayer online battle arena video game and the stand-alone sequel to the Defense of the Ancients (DotA) Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos and Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne mod." That's quite lengthy and should probably be split or condensed somehow. Very little of the introduction is sourced, also. StewdioMACK (talk) 09:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review from JimmyBlackwing
  • "the stand-alone sequel to the Defense of the Ancients (DotA) Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos and Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne mod" — Too much information crammed into too little space. Even knowing the context, I can barely follow this sentence.
  • "each of which occupies a stronghold at a corner of the map" — There are three instances of "each" in this paragraph, and this one is the easiest to replace. Perhaps, "which occupy strongholds in two corners of the playing field".
  • "over 800,000 concurrent players.[7]" — Citations are not necessary in the lead, unless this information is not repeated in the article body—and, in that case, it shouldn't be in the lead anyway.
  • A rewrite:
  • "Dota 2 is a multiplayer online battle arena game; its gameplay that focuses on combat in a three-dimensional (3D) environment, presented from an oblique high-angle isometric perspective." (Italics signify an addition. Don't forget to wikilink Isometric graphics in video games and pixel art.)
  • After the first sentence of Gameplay, you need to introduce the teams and the objective. It doesn't really matter what single players do until their actions are contextualized.
  • A rewrite:
  • "The player may command a single controllable character called a controls one of 108 "Hero" characters, each with a specific role. For example, etc., which is chosen from a selection pool of 108." (Replace "etc." with one or two relevant examples.)
  • A rewrite:
  • "Each By Hero begins the match at level one but may become more powerful by accumulating experience points through combat, Heroes thereby leveling up and gain health and magic points." (Remember to wikilink Experience point, Health (gaming) and Magic point.)
  • A rewrite:
  • "With every Each level gained—the maximum is twenty-five— allows the player to may either select a new ability for their Hero, such as etc. to learn or enhance their general statistics."
  • "The Hero's methods of combat are influenced by their primary property – Strength, Agility, or Intelligence." — This can be cut entirely.
  • "Dota 2 features a host of items, which the player may store in a small inventory. Said items may be acquired predominantly through purchase by gold, the in-game currency. Items vary in function: some enhance the statistics of a Hero, while others grant additional abilities." — Explain how to get gold before you tell the reader how it's used. Also, all three of these sentences could be reduced to the following: "The player uses gold to purchase items, which, when stored in a Hero's inventory, confer bonuses such as increased attack power or health." Remember to wikilink Item (gaming).

These changes entail a sizeable amount of content rearrangement, and I have another pressing review to address, so I'll leave it there for now. Once you've dealt with the points above, I'll come back for another round. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review from Axl
  • From the lead section, paragraph 2: "Each player controls a "Hero" character and focuses on leveling up, collecting gold, acquiring items and fighting against the other team to achieve victory." Perhaps also include destroying enemy structures/buildings in the list? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Gameplay", paragraph 1: "The player may command a single controllable character called a "Hero", which is chosen from a selection pool of 108." Is the pool always 108 Heroes, or does Valve occasionally release new Heroes? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Gameplay", paragraph 2: "These items are acquired predominantly through purchase with gold, the in-game currency." Does "gold" really need a wikilink? I wonder if there is a more appropriate Wikipedia article for video game currency? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Gameplay", paragraph 2: "The player automatically receives small increments of gold continuously, though they can obtain more by destroying enemies." Perhaps "killing" rather than "destroying"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Gameplay", paragraph 2: "Killing non-player characters grants gold only to the player who lands the final blow, whereas killing enemy Heroes grants gold to the player's nearby allies as well." I am not sure if enemy Hero bots count as "non-player characters". I suspect that this is not intended. Perhaps this should be changed to "non-Hero targets" or "enemy creeps and neutral targets"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Gameplay", paragraph 3: "These factions are defended by up to five players each." Aren't there always five player-characters on each side? Or are bots being included as "non-players"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note from the nominator

JimmyBlackwing, Axl, pardon my absence- I have been engaged heavily in a new film project, so my Wikipedia time has been severely limited. Let me get back to you on your notes. Apologies! DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 19:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Real life takes precedence. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still pretty heavily immersed in my real life obligations and it will probably remain that way until about the 20th of this month. To get an idea about how immersed I am, I wasn't aware that Star Wars Episode VII had a title or that details on the Warcraft movie were coming in until at least a day later. I look forward to addressing all your concerns when I'm free, though. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 18:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Dota_2/archive4&oldid=1075158832"