Wikipedia:Peer review/Dota 2/archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Dota 2[edit]

Previous peer review
Toolbox

* Further information

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I personally believe it is finally ready for Featured Article status after over four years of editing. I believe it fits the criteria of being well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, stable, featuring attributes that abide by the style guidelines, features media and is of a proper length. This peer review is to ensure that all of Dota 2's ducks are indeed in a row, so please approach this in the same way you would approach a Featured Article nomination.

Thanks, DARTHBOTTO talkcont 04:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs
  • Threaten me with a wrench or otherwise get my attention if I don't get something here by the end of this weekend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Ugh, hafta' read what I wrote the last time. Anyhow, thoughts:
    • It might be good to give more of a high-level overview of the gameplay right at the beginning, since it's mentioned in the lead but not in the actual article that its a MOBA. I'd bring the peer vs. peer aspects up a bit earlier before diving into the scenario/map setting.
    • I think the development section could crib a few sources from the DotA article and explain the origins of the gametype, IceFrog's role in development, and its explosion in the eSports scene. As it is once again the article doesn't really draw up the WCIII relevance until later, in an order somewhat inconsistent with the lead.
    • To accommodate Dota 2, Valve worked to upgrade the Source engine to include new features, such as high-end cloth modeling, improved global lighting, as well as improvements to Steamworks, which includes a wider expansion of utilities, such as player guides and the coaching system - the coaching system isn't referenced before now, so it shouldn't be referred to with "the".
    • The article's overall layout looks much better since last I looked at it.
    • I think the prose could still use work, but I think that's much better accomplished by me actually digging in as opposed to nagging you and filling this page with stuff. Just expect it to take a while.
    • I'll take a look at references and possible sourcing issues if any on another pass sometime this week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)