Talk:2b2t/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 05:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. Hope to have some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GACR#1a. Well written: the prose is clear, concise and understandable.
GACR#1a. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
GACR#2a. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
GACR#2b. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
GACR#2b. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
GACR#2b. All quotations are cited and their usage complies with MOS guidelines.
GACR#2c. No original research.
GACR#2d. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
GACR#3. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
GACR#4. Neutral (NPOV).
GACR#5. Stable.
GACR#6a. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.
GACR#6b. Images are relevant to the topic with appropriate captions.

I'll be using the checklist above to register progress. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello No Great Shaker, thank you so much for picking up this GA review! I've been working on this article for just under a year and I figured I could save you some time. :) Firstly, this article is very source-constrained. Not that many WP:RS have written about 2b2t, it feels like squeezing water from a stone sometimes. The nineteen that are cited are pretty much all that exists and could ever be cited, unless a journalist picks up and writes something new. There is much more 2b2t content on the internet of course, which is what makes this difficult: the WP:UGC drowns out the WP:RS.

Anyway, some of these sources are weird. There have been discussions (at length) on the talk page & archive regarding which uses of 2b2t official pages pass WP:SELFSOURCE. We currently cite 2b2t's official web presence for two things: 1. The month in 2010 when 2b2t was founded: December (other sources say 2010, but not the month) 2. The current statistics about the server: 8 terabytes file size, 510,000 players. It is the current vague consensus that these two things pass WP:SELFSOURCE, the first one for sure, and the second one tentatively, with WP:INTEXT attribution ("according to the server owner" and such). Some WP:RS have written about the server file size, but per WP:LINKSINACHAIN they are simply reporting what the server owner has said, he is truly the only possible source for this. The question at play is the first criteria for WP:SELFSOURCE which I personally think is satisfied completely. For example, we have another WP:RS saying two million people watched a YouTube video about 2b2t over 4 months in 2016, in comparison to that, 0.5 million people joining over ten years sounds actually too low to me.

Of course, I'm completely open to discussing / reevaluating any sourcing decisions, some of them may have been misguided :)

Regarding GACR#6a: The 2b2t logo is normal fair use for a logo. For the renders, it is a pleasant surprise that they are actually usable on Wikimedia commons. The stars aligned there. It survived a four month long deletion request on commons here that saw multiple admins of both enwiki and commons weigh in. The idea is that the renders are so high level that the copyright held by the players that placed and broke blocks is "de minimis", the Minecraft procedural terrain generation is also a tiny part of the image (so, also DM) and doesn't show human creativity, the Minecraft program being used to place these blocks holds no copyright, the textures used in the render are free and not from the Minecraft game, the program used to make the render is licensed under GPL, and the creator of the image licensed the output under a proper license. Yeah, stars aligned.

Finally, regarding GACR#5: there were indeed a flurry of edits on Oct 2/3 to try and fix it up to a potential GAR, but almost all were before the nomination :) Leijurv (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Leijurv, and thanks for the information which will be helpful for me doing the review. I'm going to be busy offsite most of today but hoping to progress this soon and let you have some feedback then. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Hello again, Leijurv, and I'm pleased to tell you that the article ticks all the relevant boxes above so I'm promoting it to GA. I just made a couple of tweaks which you can see. It's very well written, all within scope with good sourcing and useful, illustrative images. I found your explanation above to be helpful, especially about the renders because I would otherwise have had to ask you about them; as things stand, I believe they are fair use. I well understand what you say about excessive UGC on the internet – I've encountered the same problem when trying to expand articles about early football!

Anyway, well done. I'll do the necessary and close the review. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@No Great Shaker: Thank you so much! — Melofors T C 08:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And you, Melofors. Well done. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]