Talk:Minecraft/GA3

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

GA Reassessment[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

It is to my dismay that I am nominating this article for GA reassessment. I have noticed several problems with it that appear to cause issues with the GA criteria.

  • First, I think the lead is too short, spends to much time on gameplay, and doesn't adequately summarize the article (development, other versions, etc.)
  • Numerous sentences are unsourced (I've added around three or four CN tags today alone), vague, poorly worded, or are riddled with typos and other issues (most I saw are in the console versions section).
  • I counted four single sentence paragraphs.
  • Almost very single minor gameplay mode has a sub-section in gameplay. I mean, I can understand survival and creative, but adventure? And spectator? I also think this section needs some cleanup and trimming, as it goes into unnecessary detail.
  • Source #125 ([1]) looks to be a Microsoft fansite, which is questionable.

Unless these problems can be addressed, I feel an urge to delist this as a good article. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

    • Unless I'm misunderstanding the GAR process, wouldn't it just be a better use of time if you were to fix the issues yourself? What's the purpose of having it demoted from GA status without fixing any of the issues that led to it? Most of the "issues" you raised are easily fixable with just a bit of cleanup, and why even mention an unreliable source instead of simply replacing it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I fixed your issues. I agree with Dissident93; Fix any simple problems yourself. The only issues I still see are the See also section having only one link and many many copyedit problems. Wumbolo (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the article now, I noticed a major issue. The reception section is incomplete. It only covers the reception for three releases of the game; Wii U, PlayStation, 3DS, etc. are nowhere to be seen. JOEBRO64 19:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
That's not a major issue because, as we know, the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions of the game are identical (as well as the 3DS and Vita versions), and the Xbox One, PS4, Wii U versions are also identical (and additionally identical to Win10 and Mobile versions as well). Since these are the only two differing versions from the Java version, they have been covered in that section since they run identically to platforms which have been listed in that section. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 09:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close This is currently remaining as an open task on the WP:VG page but no one has contributed to this discussion (excluding myself) for a while. I believe this discussion should be closed. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The article should cover how the software has become a service, given the wide variety of platforms on which it appears. If not explicitly, then would suffice to cover why the title was ported to these platforms and their effects (not just release dates). This is basic breadth within the scope of what a "Good Article" must cover. Yes, Be bold and fix minor points, but the Reception section is clearly short of GA quality for a topic of this stature. Nothing wrong with calling attention to that. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 08:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Czar: Is it not obvious as to why it was ported? If by calling it a service you are referring to how it is continually upgraded and updated, then I would agree with you that the article should cover that issue. However I would suggest that the platform releases do not need to be discussed in such detail as to the 'effects' of their releases as they've all more or less had the same effect (excluding the educational edition). I think it would suffice to mention the effects of the java edition, the C++ edition (which is essentially all of the other editions) and education edition rather than to go into every detail for the nearly 20 versions of the game. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
The quantity of Minecraft ports is on par with Doom. There is plenty to be said about the basic differences between ports

Have you ever heard the saying, "There's no such thing as bad pizza?" No matter what, pizza's good by virtue of being pizza. A similar thing could be said for the many different versions of Minecraft. There really isn't such a thing as "bad Minecraft," just versions that aren't as good as the others. That's why, in spite of its many shortcomings, the New 3DS version is still an enjoyable Minecraft experience, even though it's not a great version.
— IGN on New Nintendo 3DS

A big part of Minecraft's success is how the game is available on basically every platform you can think of.
— Engadget on Apple TV

Not that each version needs a deep dive, but if the critical consensus is that the portable and microconsole versions share deficiencies, or if some versions excel at aspects of gameplay that others don't, that needs to be covered for basic breadth. czar 10:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Also basic updates since the article first hit GA, like reducing the emphasis on announcement dates throughout in the development so it doesn't read like a blow-by-blow, and instead explaining aspects like how it isn't fully cross-platform, how the iOS release has dominated the sales charts, how it spawned mobile-specific clones (sales figures and clones are PC-centric right now, discounting the past several years) czar 11:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I've just done a read-over of the article, and I'm still not convinced this is GA-level stuff. In addition to the reception section being incomplete, the development section barely even talks about how they made the game, and there are numerous unsourced statements. Also, I'm seeing weasel words like "it was announced" and entire sections composed of just release dates. The lead also doesn't really do a good job of summarizing the article (and if it does, then holy moly this article's missing a lot of information). Czar, any objections if I delist this now? JOEBRO64 13:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
The point of the GAR is not necessarily to delist but to give page watchers a target for cleanup when the issues are substantial. Usually it's best to raise these points on a talk page before advancing to a formal process like GAR. Above, page watchers said to have addressed the minor issues soon after you raised them, so it's only fair to give them time to address the points I just articulated for the first time. (Though, to be fair, there was at least one talk page comment on the Pocket Edition's outdated reception.) Also this GAR has already been archived on the talk page, so I'm going to dig it up again, ping past contributors (@FutureTrillionaire), and leave a courtesy talk page message for due diligence. czar 01:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I said this during GA nomination and I'm saying it now: the article is not ready and cannot be for a few years at least. It hardly covers the many game's ports. A lot of it is unsourced. Lots of various content is missing. The game was and still is actively developed, so the article is not keeping up with outdated gameplay and such. Etc. etc. This is one of the biggest games ever and the article does not approach the inclusive coverage or depth it would require. Even basic issues like copyediting or organization are not ready. I believe it should never have been promoted to begin with. Unfortunately, I do not believe we can bring it to GA during the lifetime of this discussion -- there are just too many things to address yet. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm going to give this another couple of days before I delist it and close this discussion. JOEBRO64 15:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Closing comment: this review has been open for almost six months, so I think we should get some closure. In addition to my concerns, both czar's and Hellknowz's comments are unaddressed. Once this page is updated, stable, properly sourced, and comprehensive, it can be renominated. JOEBRO64 21:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.