Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Defense of the Ancients

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:44, 17 March 2008.

Defense of the Ancients

[edit]
previous FAC 1 / previous FAC 2 withdrawn
Check external links

Nominating again (the previous FA I removed per request since I had a bunch of FACs on me plate.) --David Fuchs (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I have found no notable and reliable sources about controversies. The only thing sorta kinda close is internal competitive issues, but those don't fit the scope of a general encyclopedia. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "popular culture" sections are strongly discouraged in articles. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As with above, no reliable sources. Anecdotally it's the most played game variant on Warcraft III, but I couldn't give you hard numbers. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks comprehensive. FightingStreet (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a. These examples from the lead show that the entire article needs a copy-edit:
    • "It is a team strategy game focused on hero combat." This sentence breaks the flow of the lead and just seems out of place. Part of it can probably be integrated into another sentence.
    • "The objective is to destroy the opponents' base using one's own Hero along with allied heroes and allied AI-controlled fighters called "creeps"." "One's own hero" is a bit awkward in an encyclopedic register.
    • "Sharing concepts with role playing games, the player levels up their hero and uses gold to buy equipment in an effort to best the opposing team." "Best" is a bit odd in an encyclopedic register; try "defeat" or something similar.
    • "The map was developed with the World Editor of Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos, but was updated upon the release of The Frozen Throne." Change "but" to "and", since it adds on the previous clause. "Upon the release of" is somewhat awkward and flabby, but it may be unavoidable.
    • "While there have been many different variations on the original concept, the most popular version at tournaments is DotA Allstars,[3] which has been maintained by several authors over the course of its development." Change "While" to "Although", as it is more accurate and crisp. "Many different variations" is flabby; try just "variations" or, if necessary, "many variations". "Over the course of its development" can probably be tightened or even chopped entirely.
    • "Since its release, Allstars has become a feature at several worldwide tournaments, including Blizzard Entertainment's Blizzcon and the Asian World Cyber Games, as well as the Cyberathlete Amateur and CyberEvolution leagues." Chop the first clause (would it have become a feature before its release?). Are there any other worldwide tournaments that the map has appeared in? If not, you can chop "several" and do some slight restructuring to avoid misleading the reader.
    • It's a good article, but it just needs some polishing. — Deckiller 17:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think your concerns have been addressed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I performed a copy-edit throughout; it should be passable. — Deckiller 05:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Ok, I know games, but not that much about Warcraft III. When people say "map" in the context presently used in the article, I think like I think "2forts" or "de_dust" are maps to Team Fortress and Counterstrike respectively, in that they replace the layout of the game but do not change the game rules. However, as this article is written (and given the apparent popularity of this "map"), a Warcraft III "map" not only includes a change of location, but would also suggest that custom units, AI, scripts, events, and so-forth can be created within some programming language, making this more like a total modification of the game? I would make sure that even if "map" is the right word to use in the Warcraft III context, that you first fully explain what this means in the article, and if it can be helped, to avoid the use of "map", replacing it with "modification", if how I'm reading the article to mean it like that is correct. --MASEM 21:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Warcraft III calls all custom scenarios created "custom maps". While I do believe it would be perfectly reasonable to call it a mod, it does not (as far as I know) change any element of the game via hacks, et al: it's simply custom content built in a Blizzard dev environment. In any case, I've never seen a source that refers to it as such. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a better suggestion then is "custom scenario" since, based on reading the relevant articles for Warcraft III and the editor, it definitely is a new scenario, and as noted, that implies a different type of modification for the standard "video game layperson" than "custom map". --MASEM 02:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's been changed throughout. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That reads much better per my concern above. --MASEM 00:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed concerns Collectonian (talk) 07:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - several sources seem questionables, and in several places there is some OR taking place, particularly in the final section. Almost no context is given to explain what it is, and appears to be written from the view of someone very familiar Warcraft. I'd also question the notability aspect, and whether an article that doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines should be an FA article. Of concern as well is the article has been AfDed no less than 3 times. I honestly wonder how it could pass GA as being stable less than a month after its last AfD. Collectonian (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point out which sources? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 4 is a web forum posting. Ref 5 is a change log, which is used to indicate there is one put with each release (how does the existence of one with the current release support that statement and does that matter)? It is also used to source the statement that a hero was created from the "model-to-hero" contest? How so? Nothing in the change log mentions the contest or seems to support that statement at all. Side note: That same sentence is also incomplete, which would seem to indicate the article is still in need of a copyedit.
Reference 7 is the same as ref 5, except its another version posted on someone else's site. At least 5 is the official one. Its again said to support that statement about the creation of the hero, but still doesn't actually do so. Ref 8 is another forum posting. Even official ones should be used very cautiously, and as that one can only be viewed by logged in users, I do not thing it can be a valid source at all. No one can confirm who isn't a member of the site. And a forum posting is being used to source an entire paragraph?
And that's just the first paragraph, the history and development, of which I would expect to be the most easily sourced from quality, reliable sources. Collectonian (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as far as sourcing ease, you'd be wrong. :P I'll dig up the archive.org changelogs, which takes care of all the blog issues except for your issue with the DeviantArt link. I'll message you when I've made the changes, it'll have to wait until tomorrow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added in the changelogs, apparently they were all stored on-site after all, and the deviantart ref is now supported by the changelog, so I see no reason it should be removed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see how the change logs support the statements they are referencing. Nothing in them says "this was created by a fan" or anything like that. Collectonian (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the source for "Numerous variants were created based on the original, but Allstars became the de facto standard." Is this statement necessary "Each release is accompanied with a changelog." since few releases are not? Also, refs 4 and 7 are still forum postings. Collectonian (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've rephrased and sourced the statement you were talking about. As for the two references you’re talking about: Forum postings are going to be as good as it gets. Eul only posted his bit about making the map open source there, but it’s vitally important to understanding the history that he did. As for the other reference, it’s also a forum posting, but it’s where the AI writer posts. Both of these websites are/were where the development of the game occurred, and as they are both authors it falls under WP:SPS. While I would be happy to have better sources for them, I think since they qualify as “experts” in the sense that they are the developers, it fits criteria for WP:V. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in The War Center's forums marks it as being an "official" forum and the site itself has nothing showing industry support, which would be the only way it could be an exception. While I agree, the development is an important aspect of the game, it seems the only significant information is coming from a forum posting and by referring to the user name of "Eul." Ditto DOT All-stars, which is not only not an official forum, but also requires registration/log in to even see the forum posting. "Teams also fight computer controlled units and defenses." is an aspect of gameplay and should be sourceable from elsewhere. If other sourcing can not be found, those aspects probably need to be removed. Collectonian (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed all the 'questionable' content. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has Collectonian been asked to visit concerns about reliable sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the above change, yes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Maybe add a note with the first mention of Eul that the developers are only referred to by their codenames (supported by source 3). Would Reception be a better name for "Recognition and popularity"? Development might need a little expansion to include a quick explanation of Warcraft III and its background, as the article seems to presume people know what that is. It would also allow the moving of the source from the first sentence of the article into the article body. In general, a lead shouldn't needs sources as it is a summary of the article proper. Collectonian (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a line about what WCIII is and how custom maps are made; the source has been moved down and addressed in the main body of development. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed concerns ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have done a complete copyedit of the article, which I hope will address 1a concerns. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 01:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks better, but there are still some lingering issues that can be tough to catch (such as a redundant sentence: "Each team has a base in an opposite corner of the map. Players on the Sentinel team have their base at the bottom left corner of the map, while the Scourge team are based in the top right corner." I'll finish it up. — Deckiller 16:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I clarified the comments you left in gameplay as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support like one of Fuchs' previous works, it's short but comprehensive, well-written and referenced. Enough to receive the FA promotion. igordebraga ≠ 22:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose. I've played this map (my favorite character was the panda) for a couple of months in the past, and even though this article is well written and explains the gameplay of this map well, there are many parts missing. What about a brief explanation about the different modes of the game? About the different heroes? What about Roshan? Why isn't it mentioned that players can control summoned units as well as their heroes (and not just the heroes themselves)? I'm sorry, DotA rules and I wish I could see it over the main page, but this article is far from being a features one. YemeniteCamel (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:GAMECRUFT. All the things you suggested go beyond the level of summary that we intend to provide, especially in our best works. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright, even if you're right (I'm sure you are, as I'm not an expert in English Wikiepdia's writing rules), this article is still not on a par with the rest of the featured articles in the English Wikipedia. The article, as it is now, is not significant enough to have that shiny star at the corner of the page. YemeniteCamel (talk) 09:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please explain how it's not "on par", making specific reference to the FA criteria at WP:FA?. Without an actionable comment, your oppose is meaningless. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is not comprehensive and not of appropriate length. It is too short. As I said, I'm really FOR this game, but the article is just not enough. You can't simply deny my oppose (or name it 'meaningless'), as you cannot deny a vote in elections. YemeniteCamel (talk) 09:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I can't deny it personally, but the FAC director or his delegate are more likely to if you don't name specific things that can be improved. You've said it's too short; that's a start. What, exactly, would you like to see changed? As far as I'm aware, all the notable information sourceable to reliable sources that is available on DOTA has been added to the article. If you are aware of other information, please say so, and we'll try to add it. Simply saying "it's too short" is like saying "I don't like DOTA" (I know you do like it, but it's an example), which again is an invalid reason to oppose an FAC. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm not really good at knowing what's missing, but I'll try my best, and maybe I'll try and look at Age of Mythology for ideas...
                • Spin-offs section. There have been many clones around bnet, I've played some of them, so why not mention them? There should be (in my opinion) a mention of Roshan (just as there are some paragraphs about the ghosts in Pac Man, and I don't think it falls in WP:GAMECRUFT). Maybe the "Recognition and popularity" should be split, because it contains information about world championships and competitions (even though it 'shows' on the way how popular the game is). Maybe the game has been reviewed by large gaming sites? It should be added if so. What about Blizzard's reaction to the game? After all, I know some of my friends bought WC3 and played only this game, so it's rather notable. I think that notable versions of the game should be noted, (and not that I remember any version like that right now), that included major changes.
                • Let me explain myself a little. I come from the Hebrew Wikipedia, and they are very strict there. The featured articles there are near perfect. I want that atleast the articles , about subjects I like and are about to be featured, are great just as the top articles in the Hebrew Wikipedia. YemeniteCamel (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Could the article do with some expansion? Yes, but the line between expansion and cruftifying the article in this case is very narrow. A further consideration is the lack of reliable sources that talk about the heroes, modes, et al besides just a general “here it is” on the official site or forums. Given that these sources would not fall under the provisions of WP:SPS, I feel that it is better to err on the slender side. Wikipedia is not the place to post all the heroes, because someone who hasn’t played the game isn’t going to give a flying fuck about a list with no reliable context. As for Roshan, et al- once again, no reliable sources. I could respond to the Hebrew wikipedia bit, but that would be off tangent. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Forgive me for not buying the "no reliable source" arguement. If we go on your way, as "someone who hasn't played the game isn't going to give a flying fuck about..." then I would rather say that this someone isn't going to give a fuck about this entire subject. Anyway, it isn't something unusual for VG articles having an explanation of characters, heroes and units in it. Just saying "no reliable source" and "someone isn't going to give a fuck" are not arguements I agree with, (However, I did agree with H2O's arguements) and they don't really help promote the article's status. I understand the need for sources, but AFAIK, the heroes' list is found in the official site (very useful one). So isn't it a reliable source? (And yes I know that simply linking to that site is OK by you, but then again we can make the entire article a link to the different sources, where the game is explained just the same...) YemeniteCamel (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at it this way. The article currently states that there are ninety heroes, with advantages et al (this is sourced to the Heroes Database.) What more are you looking for that doesn’t go into game-guidish minutae? “These include Panda”? “There are heroes termed by ‘carry’ heroes, et al”? You either go into way too much detail, or its stuff that cannot be sourced because no reliable sources talk about it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You can note the different types of heroes - Agility, Intelligence, Strength, and write about the attributes, perhaps.
    And still, I don't see any reason why feature this article if something is missing from it. Whatever the (good) reason the info is missing for, if there is lack of info, the article can't be featured. Maybe a DotA book will be published, and then you could write about all that "unsourced" information? Heck, all these talkings about DotA made me want to play it again. Northrend, here I come! YemeniteCamel (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In case Sandy wants to close this up, I have left notes on both Elco and Collectonian’s talk pages about their issues and I am waiting for them to respond. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the note, David. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so you know, Elco is unfortunately sick and busy in real life, so he may not get a chance to reply. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the note. I think there's an awful flu going around, and I suspect it's hitting not only WP:SIGNPOST, but also a couple of FACs (haven't seen Karanacs (talk · contribs) this week, and she has several outstanding opposes plus her own FAC up). We can wait; the mainpage should reflect our best work, and a few days won't matter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments Perhaps look over the prose again to tighten it up. Some examples of issues I spotted.
      • "The objective of the scenario is to destroy the opponents' base using a hero, along with allied heroes and allied AI-controlled fighters called "creeps"." See the ambiguity?
      • "Created by a mapmaker known only as Eul, Defense of the Ancients is a new game scenario..." I'm not sure "new" works here.
      • "...who was succeeded by IceFrog after the release of version 6.x." Clause doesn't fit well with the rest of the sentence. Might be better to separate them. Would be nice to have a clearer explanation of this "succession". What does that mean?
      • "he added a feature" Since IceFrog is presumably anonymous, are we sure it's "he"?
      • "Versions with artificial intelligence scripts to control heroes have also been released." Don't understand what this entails...what do these "scripts" do?
      • "...it has replaced Counter-Strike as the most-played game." Maybe I'm missing something, but the sources don't seem to support this statement. Are there figures I'm missing? Also, can this map be described as the "game" that has replaced Counter-Strike (if this is indeed true)? BuddingJournalist 17:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've addressed all your grammar, etc. issues. I also rephrased the CS statement. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - This article needs more coverage of the Basshunter song and the resulting storm of press coverage on the game. It's the #1 reason for people to read the article, and deserves more than a trivial mention. User:Krator (t c) 20:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no "storm" of coverage, actually. I did have a source in Dutch which noted a rise in interest, but it went offline and I can't get a copy of archive.org. Doing google searches for the song only turns up singles charts. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a storm of coverage, in Dutch, at least. My mainstream newspaper de Volkskrant covered the game, for example. User:Krator (t c) 13:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And if they did, it's not online at their site. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Defense_of_the_Ancients&oldid=1138458607"