Wikipedia:Featured article review/StarCraft/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

StarCraft[edit]

Article is still a featured article

Review commentary[edit]

It's got a trivia section. I shudder at the sight of these abominations, and am bringing this to wider attention in the hope that reviewers will assess which bits are actually trivial and remove them, and which bits should be moved elsewhere, so the trivia section can be scrapped. Worldtraveller 20:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That article was nowhere near as crufty as I expected it to be, although it got cruftier the longer it went on. The trivia list looks as though it could be axed entirely, except maybe for the guy who died playing it - I remember hearing about that, it seems notable enough. Some more citations would be nice, as well...The Disco King 22:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, I've found that any trivia section can usually be folded into the regular text. If a fact won't go into the regular text in normal progression, it probably should be axed. Also, if a fact cannot be cited, it should be axed or go on the talk page with a request for a cite. A lot of that stuff is crufty though... Good luck. — Scm83x hook 'em 08:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed the trivia section (except tho or three that were dispatched elsewhere) and converted the external links to the <ref> format. Hopefully it will be OK :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as FA. Not nearly as bad as you made it sound at first. :) —Nightstallion (?) 13:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as FA. The trivia section is gone now. KdogDS 17:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor reviews do not require keep or remove votes. Voting to keep or remove occurs if the article moves to FARC. Sandy 21:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not so fast, it still needs work.
    • There are six images in the article — the first five are claiming fair use, but do not have fair use rationale, and I'm not convinced that the last image does not inherit its copyright status from the individual box arts.
    • I'd like to see an {{endspoiler}} to match up with the spoiler tag.
    • References are missing information such as author and publication date.
Pagrashtak 05:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games. Sandy 21:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Polish the prose, please. In particular, different ideas are poorly integrated into some sentences. Here are examples.
    • In the lead, this sentence comprises two ideas that have been forced together with just a comma: "Blizzard estimated in 2005 that 9 million copies of StarCraft and its expansion pack, StarCraft: Brood War had been sold since its release, and it has achieved an international cult-like status in the computer gaming world, especially in its online multiplayer form." Not good.
    • " It was initially released for the PC platform in 1998, with a Macintosh version of the game being released in 1999." "With" is a poor back-connector, and the grammar is awkward in the second clause.

With further work, you might be proud of this article; not yet, though. Tony 15:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The spoiler tag detracts from the flow of the article - the campaign contains no plot twists that merit the spoiler tag. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status. Does this one need to proceed to FARC or may we close it successfully? Looks like a minor review and I notice some work has been done. We should definitely make sure about the image issue before closing. Marskell 10:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the prose is tortured, but maybe that's only because I don't speak the language. I did find some statements that need citations; for example, Even as of 2006, StarCraft is still one of the most popular online games in the world, with the number of players online at any given time varying from 50,000 to 100,000 or more. Sandy 12:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose varies from poor to undistinguished: certainly not "compelling", as required. For example: "A player plays as a colonial magistrate of the Terran Confederacy, and quickly meets Jim Raynor,..."—"player plays"? How did they meet quickly? By talking fast? Tony 14:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

At issue are 2a (prose), 2c (references) and 4 (images). Changes since nomination—a bit of a poke around, but inadequate to address the issues. Tony 15:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on copyediting, but I've run into a fairly serious problem in the "Influences" section. Several of these alleged "influences" are really just resemblances, which may be coincidences or simply common tropes in science fiction. This sentence is particularly questionable: "The game displays elements from the novel Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein, most noticeably, the name of the Starship Trooper's civilization and the Humans in Starcraft share the name "Terran", as well as some general themes of military science fiction and space opera." Is the article really suggesting that using the term "Terran" to identify humans proves a direct influence from "Starship Troopers"? Can "some general themes" of "space opera" legitimately count as influences? The claims accompanied by evidence, such as StarCraft characters quoting directly from "Aliens," seem legitimate, but others, like the tenuous resemblances to Heinlein and StarCraft's use of an insectoid race with a hive mind, are way too vague to assert without references. Could this section be saved by renaming it somehow? Peirigill 23:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Message left at User_talk:Worldtraveller. Sandy 03:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've copyedited the prose. It could still use work, but I'm hitting diminishing marginal returns. A few things that stand out to me:
  • The "Influence" section is weak. It needs citations to support its claims, which feel like original work.
  • There's still some cruft; for example, what's a "ladder?"
  • The section on replays is just awkward, and I'm not sure how to fix it.
  • The section on the sequel was fairly POV, with phrases like "diehard fans" and "eagerly anticipated." I don't understand the chronology in this section.
  • The organization of the article doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand the wording of some subsection titles. I don't understand why some subsections are where they are, especially when there is only one subsection to the article.
On the other hand, the prose is cleaner, and 3 KB shorter than it used to be. Peirigill 10:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove unless open-issues above are resolved. --jwandersTalk 13:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending... a source on the influences or an axe of the section. It's OR as it stands. Otherwise, I think this is within the criteria. It's not crufty, the prose has apparently improved, and the issue that brought this here, a trivia section, has in fact been addressed. I removed the sentence that Peir was concerned about. Marskell 19:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reworked a few really awful run-on sentences in the plot summary. Still waiting for sources on influences. I have placed a note regarding this. Marskell 12:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Great article but I agree with Marskell. It is a valuable section so I moved the it to the talk page and requested clarification and citations (rather than remove it).Maintain 20:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have been working to standardize headings, reorganize, trim, and work on the prose, please don't remove for a little while, I am going to be working on it. Thank you for your consideration. Judgesurreal777 00:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status The review will be kept open until your work is finished. Please notify when you are done so that the article's review may be finalized. Joelito (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -There has been massive improvement, new images, good rationales, gone from 17 to over 40 reliable references, tons of material trimmed and referenced, and is now worthy again of being called a Featured article. I have to find a definition of "ladder", but other than that, this FAC can be closed. If there are any other issues, please say so :) Judgesurreal777 16:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also have here for your inspection the day it was called an FA, and I think it is currently much better than then. [[1]]
  • Keep. Tony 04:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and FYI, the ladder example isn't cruft, it's an unexplained term :) — Deckiller 06:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/StarCraft/archive1&oldid=1138477831"