Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski ( talk · contribs) 10:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 11:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Immediate Failures

  • It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria - No, not too far away for
  • It contains copyright infringements - Copyvio check comes up clean
  • It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). - Nothing at start of review
  • It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. - No signs of edit warring

Links

Prose

Lede

To be noted - Articles such as this, should follow other sports articles, rather than video game articles and should follow a similar pattern. The article is regarding a video game tournament, but mostly covers a sporting tournament. The same layout should be for most sports. Some of these points listed will be because they don't conform to similar trends in sports articles.

  • "the tournament began with the qualifier phase in June 2017, and ended after the main event..." - Generally, sports articles say: The event took place between DD-DD Month and qualifying was between DD-DD Month, and was held at LOCATION. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 11:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Qualifiers are held online, teams don't actually meet up until the group stage days before the main event. eSports are not sports and should not always follow the same 1:1 standard because of their differences. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 15:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Actually, the article never mentions the qualifiers are held online. it simply says there are "regional qualifiers". There may be some issues regarding calling them online qualifiers, as the game in question is an online game (even if the finals are hosted on VLAN, or LAN). Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 08:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Main event is held live with the two teams physically facing each other. But I agree that qualifiers being hosted online (like any private game) should be mentioned somewhere. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 16:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Indeed. I could simply see how it might be confusing to have an "online stage", and an "in person" stage, when the game is online. I'm sure you'll word it correctly though. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 08:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • This should be at least two paragraphs. The opening paragraph should state what the competition was, and what dates it took place, and then the second more in-depth about the article. The second paragraph should mention what happened with the previous years tournament winners, followed by how the finals went. The final sentence should be regarding why the event was notable (IE, Prize money). Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 11:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • The infobox only lists the dates of the main competition (I think, as it's not sourced). This should also include the qualifiers. There's also some confusion for me as to what is listed as being the "main event", as most championships have a qualifying phase, and a main tournament. This also seems to have a group stage as well, (Which is an American thing, I know) which is confusing to me, and should be explained. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 14:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Again, qualifiers are held online and its dates are cited in prose. Just adding a bunch of dates there would be more confusing to understand than just going with the actual part of the tournament. Group stage is just used to seeding into the bracket of the main event, I thought the prose explained this pretty well? ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 15:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
The group stage has over 100 matches in it, so that would make it quite important. There are also teams that are removed from the competition at this stage. It's certainly not insignicant enough for two sentences. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 08:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I don't disagree, but there really isn't a reliable source that actually states this that I've ever found, so would that be a problem? ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 15:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Even a few bits of information as to who went into each bracket would be something, the tables should enhance the prose, not replace them. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 08:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Agreed, it's just hard to actually find sources that reported on the qualifier stage. The most I've ever been able to find are dates or incidents that occurred during them, such as when a team was disqualified from TI8's for having a player use mouse macros (against the rules). ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 15:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Background and format

Potentially the title should be changed. I personally prefer "Tournament overview", and have sections for Background (around the event, and the game) and Format (The format of the competition, and the teams involved.)

  • a corresponding digital compendium for Dota 2 was released before the event," - I'm not sure what this is. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 14:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • "Known as a battle pass, 25% of revenue made by it was sent directly towards the tournament's prize pool" - Usually sports articles have very little information as to where the prize money came from, but this should be in the "prize money" section. (see below) Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 14:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Because most sports don't have crowdfunded prize money. This is almost unique to Dota/TI, so I don't see why you don't see the importance of it. Again, you are focusing too much on the "its a tournament so it has to follow sports standard" rules here. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 15:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • The final section doesn't seem to go into much information for me. Why doesn't the article cover any information regarding the qualifiers? Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 14:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Because sources generally skip covering the exact matches of the qualifiers and just mention who won/came from them. Just look at the open qualifier stage, and you will see there are twelve separate brackets that featured 31 matches each for a total of 372 matches, 99% of them being unnotable on their own. And that's not even counting the main qualifiers, which featured its own group stage and bracket. If you can find sources that actually mention these in as much detail as the main event got, then go ahead and add it. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 15:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Information over the casting of hosts etc. should be it's own paragraph really, it seems really different to the rest of the information in the section.

Teams

"directly invited" - Change to invited directly Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 14:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Once again, I'd like to see more information regarding the qualifiers. Why does CIS get one place, whilst China gets three? (Surely it's a size thing, but not explained) Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 14:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Not even the teams/players know, Valve sets the numbers based on regions they believed were strong enough to deserved more spots. If you think this could actually be explained in the article somehow, I wouldn't oppose it.
  • The rosters of two independent teams, Planet Dog and Team NP, were signed after the qualifier stage respectively by the eSports organizations HellRaisers and Cloud9. - Not explained. What makes an team independent? Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 14:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Not being sponsored or funded by an organization. These teams were formed by players leaving other teams and then signed with an organization shortly before the main event. Doing so simply changed their name and branding.
  • Valve tournament rules allow for players to freely play for another team or organization without restrictions, as long as the rosters remain the same. - If a player plays for another team, how is the roster still the same? Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 14:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    • I meant "team" as in organization, so this could be more clear. Planet Dog and Team NP are perfect examples of it, because they played the main event as HellRaisers and Cloud9. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 16:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Results

This should go into more details regarding the group stage. There really isn't much information, except for who qualified for what. There's no information regarding who defeated the other teams, or even any news of the group stage, considering this would have been the bulk of the tournament with hundreds of matches in this stage (16 for each team.) Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 14:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

The Group stage sources. As they are the same for both groups, it seems irrelevent to source them this way. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 10:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply
That's because the "source" footnote there remains even if you don't include anything, so I figured I might as well make use of the parameter. If you can find a way to hide that, then go ahead. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 16:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm absolutely shocked that this can't be supressed! It's fine.
  • Maybe, but only the first round of the loser's bracket and grand finals were anything other than a Bo3, so I didn't see the point in redundancy. This was already mentioned in prose too. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 15:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply
It would only be redundent if it were true in all cases. If other rounds are different, it's not consistent in my eyes. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 08:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Fair enough, even the Liquidpedia bracket includes the info per round. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 16:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Wasn't aware that it was North American specific term, but I'm also unaware of how you would better put that. Winning a series without loosing a game in one has to have another term that is region-free? ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 15:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply
I'd use "clean sweep" as before, which is what "sweeping" would be derived from. I'm not against the wording, it just seems better. Whatever Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 08:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Well if you do want context, then Liquid won all three games in a fast, aggressive style that pretty much left Newbee with no chance with winning them. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 15:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Winnings

Change title to "Prize Money". Winnings is very informal. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Notes & References


There's a lot here that could potentially need some looking at before we can proceed.

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a ( reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR): d ( copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a ( major aspects): b ( focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Dissident93 - Thank you for your time in listening to my concerns about the article. I have now passed it to GA. I'd still like more prose written about the group stage, as it feels like this is close to not passing point 3. I would also like to comment on there not currently being a MOS for esports tournaments, and may raise this with the VG WikiProject, as articles such as this will only grow and multiply over time.

Also, thank you for your patience with region free terms. Not all articles have to be written in American English, or British English, but obviously, if we ignore regional wording, it helps everyone.

Congratulations on passing this GA. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 08:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I personally don't think I addressed enough of your points for it to pass GAN, but I'll continued working and expanding the article as I've always done regardless. I'll try and expand group stage info with at least the basic details (exact matches and such aren't covered, as I've already explained). This will also be done for TI6, another GA, and TI8, the current one I'm working on. And yes, we do need a specialized MOS for eSports, as they continue to grow by the year and Wikipedia has pretty much no specific guidelines for them. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 16:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:The_International_2017/GA1&oldid=853275296"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE