This article about the critically acclaimed video game, Dota 2, has underwent extensive and arduous construction since I first created it within minutes of the actual product being announced in 2010. Since then, the page has achieved excellent stability, referencing, completeness and from what others have stated, an unbiased and encyclopedic format. Myself and the other editors have worked in tandem for an article built around consensus, with an extensive degree of discussion involved with most every major edit. I now believe we are prepared to achieve Featured Article status, therefore I will address any questions or concerns by whoever reviews this. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 18:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Comments from EricCorbett I think this article needs significant work before it meets the prose requirement of FA criterion 1a, and I'm inclined to believe that it's not quite ready. A few examples follow:
"Located on the northeast side of the river is a "boss" called "Roshan" who typically takes multiple team members to kill." Is there a missing word there? "... whom it typically takes multiple team members to kill" perhaps?
"Heroes are strategically powerful player-controlled units with unique special abilities". Why unique and special? Doesn't their uniqueness alone make them special?
"During periods of the year, seasonal events take place in Dota 2, which have an effect upon the overall game experience, with discretion of the player." How could seasonal events not take place during periods of the year, whatever that means?
"Implementation of these seasonal events are not set at an annual basis ...". Not at all sure what that's supposed to mean.
"... though many heroes fill similar roles as others ...". That "as others is clearly redundant.
"... so that they can balance their hero selections" vs. "... whereas killing Heroes grants gold to the killer and any nearby allies". Is it to be hero or Hero?
"The earliest iteration of Dota as a concept emerged in 2003". That doesn't really make sense, as if it was the earliest then it couldn't have been an iteration.
"... prompting other map makers to develop different variants". In what sense could a variant be anything other than different?
"... Steam users can save personal files and settings on their online accounts". You don't store things on an account, you store them in an account.
"Tournaments may be available for spectating in-game via the purchase of tournament tickets in the Dota Store, which provides an alternative to viewing live streams online ... a portion of every ticket purchased goes to the tournament organizers, offering an alternative to viewing competitive games on live streams." Isn't that saying the same thing twice?
I've addressed all the issues you've brought up. Take a look, see what else needs to be addressed and keep the critiques coming! DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 22:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
"The game has become the most played on Steam, with daily peaks of over 700,000 concurrent player" - this should be changed, "most played" is subjective, it's the most active or populated in terms of concurrent players, also a date or time would be helpful, e.g. as of 2014 or between
website crash sentence needs copyedited to make shorter
much of the origins section seems only relevant to the original Defense of the Ancients, should be cut down and linked to there instead
"the number of unique monthly players was recorded at beyond three million" source says "an active user base of 3 million and peaks of 300,000 concurrent users." I don't agree that they are the same thing.
"Two months following the game's release, Gabe Newell claimed that updates to Dota 2 generated approximately three percent global internet traffic." unsubstantiated claim, source says up to 3%
there is no link to Virtual goods in the entire article, but it discusses them
Thank you, Vaypertrail. I've done what I can to implement your suggestions to the best of my abilities. Firstly, IceFrog's real name has never been confirmed, so simply calling him by his pseudonym is the best we can do. The learning curve (cliff) is the most prominent criticism the game has received, but the inhospitable community has been mentioned, as well. I'll look through the critical articles to see if there's anything to do about that issue, but my inclination is to leave that part as is. Anyways, thank you for the thorough commentary. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 18:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
The lead section is at least three to four paragraphs, so that looks good.
The gameplay section adequately covers the aspects of the game.
The production section looks good from beginning to end.
The reception section and other sections looks good as well, but is a bit over detailed so far.
This article may need to undergo a thorough copyedit.
I will indeed give this a thorough copyedit, but could you explain how the reception section is over-detailed? When I wrote it, I actually tried to make it pragmatic, with only the bare necessities for the qualities made known. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 18:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
From the lead section, paragraph 3: "Upon its release four years later, Dota 2 was praised by video game critics, who lauded it for its engaging and rewarding gameplay experience, remaining faithful to its predecessor, while also increasing the production quality." The sentence does not flow correctly. Perhaps there should be another "and" before "remaining". However it may be better to re-write the sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
From the lead section, paragraph 3: "Dota 2 has become the most actively played game on Steam, with highest daily peaks at over 800,000 concurrent players." The reference itself does not support the statement. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
When I updated it to 800,000 players, the reference supported it. Just to be safe, I've changed it back to 700,000, (though I will probably change it back in the near future when it's true).
I am not entirely comfortable with this. The reference itself seems to change/update on a day-to-day basis. It is plausible that the player numbers will change in the future, leaving the reference inappropriate. It would be better to use a third-party reference that doesn't change. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
In "Development", the "System requirements" table states that for Windows, version 7 is required. Hidden text in the editing window states "Yes we know the game probably also runs on XP, Vista, and 8. It is not in the source, so you should not add it here". If those other versions do indeed run Dota 2, this requires a suitable source and inclusion in the table. Otherwise readers (including myself) might believe that only version 7 is supported. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I see what you mean, but I can't find any reliable sources to elaborate upon system requirements lower than was Valve suggests. What would you say about this matter? DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 21:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I did a search for Dota 2 system requirements and I found this page. As well as including the other versions of Windows, it also indicates a lower amount of minimum memory (RAM). Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm really not sure what to make of this. There are significant differences from the original source: OS versions, CPU, RAM, graphics card & hard disk space. I am more inclined to think that this source is more accurate—but I don't have any way to demonstrate that. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I've considered everything, and I have concluded that we should go with what the official site states, rather than what a fan site speculates. Therefore, We're going with the reliable Windows 7 system requirements. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 23:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
From "Gameplay", paragraph 1: "Towers and creeps serve to divide the map between the two teams and are often the focal point of skirmishes." Creeps are often the focal point(s) of skirmishes? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
That sentence was completely incorrect- glad I didn't write it! DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 21:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for deleting it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
From "Gameplay", paragraph 1: "they constitute a fixed but recurring resource, though their strategic value may vary depending on the teams' and players' choices." There is no need to mention both the teams and the players. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't know when that slipped in there, but it's been removed. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 21:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
It looks like you have completely deleted it, which is fine I suppose. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
From "Gameplay", paragraph 1: "Located on the northeast side of the river is a "boss" called "Roshan" whom it typically takes multiple team members to kill." this awkward sentence should be re-written. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I've attempted to rectify this sentence. Tell me if this works: "Featured across the map are hostile units referred to as "neutrals", which are not aligned to either faction and are primarily located in the forests. Located on the northeast side of the river is a "boss" called "Roshan", who typically requires multiple team members to kill and drops strategically powerful items". DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 21:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's good. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
From "Gameplay", paragraph 2: "There are nine standard game modes and 107 "Heroes" in Dota 2." The paragraph goes on to describe the Heroes. But what are these different standard game modes? Are there "non-standard" game modes? Are the non-standard games the same as the seasonal games? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the word "standard". Now, I never added the names of the game modes, because I feared it would tread into the territory of a game guide. What is your suggestion? DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 21:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
When I read that sentence, it makes me interested to know what the game modes are. I agree that the article should not be a "game guide", but there is a fine line between "encyclopedic" and "game guide". If you don't think that the game modes should be listed, then I accept that. But in that case, why mention that there are nine game modes? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I note the detailed information about who gets gold when a target is killed/destroyed—which is fine by the way. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I will see if I can find a reliable source that lists the nine game modes, but I have had poor luck thus far. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 23:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
From "Gameplay", paragraph 3: "Though gold is granted steadily at a slow rate, the more expensive items are typically only purchased by Heroes who can accumulate gold at a much higher rate, usually by efficiently killing enemy creeps, Heroes, or structures." I'm not sure that structures are "killed". Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
From "Gameplay", paragraph 3: "Along with the gold bounty, killing units and structures provides experience, allowing players to level up their Heroes as they complete objectives." Is the killing of units an objective of itself? Or perhaps delete "as they complete objectives". Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I've replaced it with "as the game progresses". DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 18:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. (I have added "destroying structures".) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
From "Gameplay", subsection "Seasonal events": "Dota 2 features a variety of seasonal events, which provides players with the option of playing the game with special game modes." I wonder if this sentence might flow better with "provide" instead of "provides"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't sure about this one, but that's fine. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
From "Development", subsection "Origins", paragraph 1: "When the developer of Warcraft III, Blizzard Entertainment, released the expansion set The Frozen Throne in 2003, Eul ceased development of DotA." Was the release of The Frozen Throne really the reason why Eul ceased development of Dota? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I changed it to "after". It has never been specified why he ceased development of the map, just that he did after The Frozen Throne was released. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 19:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
So there is no connection between the release of The Frozen Throne and Eul ceasing development of DotA? Why even mention that The Frozen Throne was released? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
No, there is a connection, as Eul developed the map until The Frozen Throne was released. For that fact, I would say it is worth mentioning The Frozen Throne's release. Otherwise, there would be no context for when Eul ceased development. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 23:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
From "Development", subsection "Concept", paragraph 1: "all of whom had attempted to play at a competitive level." What is a "competitive level"? Should this be "professional level"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
No, not professional level. I changed it to "...all of whom had attempted to play competitively". DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 19:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I had a look at the reference (YouTube video). I suppose that's okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
From "Development", subsection "Concept", paragraph 2: "Blizzard acquired DotA-Allstars, LLC from Riot Games." What is "DotA-Allstars, LLC"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I had specified DotA-Allstars, LLC in a sentence earlier, but it would appear somebody deleted it. It's been implemented again. Apologies for the confusion- it irritates me, as well. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 19:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
From "Development", subsection "Design", paragraph 1: "Unranked practice matches can also be played with other human players, AI bots, or alone." Playing alone without bots? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
From "Development", subsection "Design", paragraph 1: "In the debut Q&A, IceFrog stated that Dota 2 would serve as the long-term continuation of the mod." Perhaps "Q&A" should be spelt out? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
From "Development", subsection "Design", paragraph 3: "In addition, teams may be formally identified by the game's software, which automatically recognizes games with players as being team matches and catalogs them as such." I'm not sure what this means. "Games with players"? Are there games without players? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
From "Development", subsection "Merchandise": "In addition, Valve secured various licensing contracts with third-party producers, the first of which, a Dota 2 edition of the SteelSeries QcK+ mousepad, was unveiled at The International 2011." I'm not sure what "The International 2011" is. A video game conference perhaps? The reference does not mention The International 2011. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I see that the phrase is subsequently linked in the "Release" section. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, if you look, you'll see that it's the annual Dota 2 championship. I fixed the issue with the reference and the clarification, however, so others shouldn't be confused. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 02:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I have moved the internal link for "The International" up to the "Documentary" subsection. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
From "Release", paragraph 1: "After nearly two years of beta testing, Dota 2 transitioned into launch mode on June 21, 2013, and was officially released on July 9, 2013." What does "transitioned into launch mode" mean? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Launch mode was the term Valve used to describe the state of the game in the week prior to the launch of Dota 2. However, it's inconsequential, so I've deleted it and there will be no more need for concern. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 02:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
"Gameplay" has an "Overhead Map" image with several marked locations. I am not able to read the numbers for the yellow markers (secret shops & side lane shops). This might be due to my view settings though. Also, it is necessary to capitalize all of the names? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I would be inclined to think it's correct, but I don't think it's necessary. I've read references to both lowercase and uppercase usage of the buildings, so it's ambiguous. However, one feature that is consistent is that "Ancient" is always uppercase, even in the middle of sentences. So, done. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 23:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
However, I didn't change the secret shops and side lane shops from yellow, because it's a color that correlates to their presence in-game. Is this something you feel needs to be changed from yellow? DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 23:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for changing to lower case. I don't object to yellow. However I am not able to read the white-on-yellow text. Are you able to read that text? Is it possible to change it to, say, black-on-yellow? Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Another concern about the labels is that several labels are hidden beneath other labels. I am not sure what can be done about this. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I've condensed the two Ancient clusters. This gave us room to add Roshan to the map, as well. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 20:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! That's much better. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
In "Release", the latter two paragraphs are not about the release. Indeed they are chronologically before the first paragraph. Those two paragraphs should be moved up to "Development". Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I am not convinced that the paragraphs are really part of "Design", but it is an improvement. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
From "Reception", subsection "Post-release", paragraph 1: "On GameRankings, the game has a score of 89.27%, based on reviews from fifteen critics." I don't think that we can justify precision to one-hundredth of a percent from just 15 reviews. (I am aware that the source does state "89.27%".) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the ".27" for your convenience. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 20:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
From "Reception", subsection "Post-release", paragraph 2: "The depth, delivery and overall balance of Dota 2 were generally the most commonly-attributed positive features of the game, serving in large as aspects to overlook its learning curve which was considered steep by reviewers." I am not sure what the latter part of the sentence means. Can you clarify this please? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
What it means is that the praise for the quality of the game exceeded its criticisms. What would you suggest? Should I simply remove the latter portion of the sentence? DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 05:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
How about this: "The depth, delivery and overall balance of Dota 2 were generally the most commonly-attributed positive features of the game, which outweighed the relatively steep learning curve." Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
File:Dota 2 Gameplay Sep 2013.jpg - non-free screenshot, small, FUR filled out - please change the replaceable to not, since it's not replaceable with a free screenshot, and expand the purpose of use a bit with specifics
File:Dota2-Ancient-comparison.jpg - non-free screenshot, small, FUR filled out - I'm not convinced that this article justifies a third non-free screenshot simply to show that the aesthetics are very similar from DotA to Dota 2. Seems like screenshot 1 plus the paragraph that the aesthetics and UI are similar to Dota1 covers that just fine.
I hated doing it, since I like the image, but I removed it from the article. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 21:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to bring up a few points that PresN may have missed.
File:Dota 2 Gameplay Sep 2013.jpg is a screenshot from spectator mode showing a professional game in progress between Alliance and Navi. A screenshot of the team just sitting in the base misses a lot of what Dota actually is. A screenshot from a player's perspective, taken during an engagement, maybe around a tower would be much more effective. The article does not show or mention the game's fog of war at all.
File:Dota 2 Overhead Map.jpg would be a lot more effective if it were annotated. The article text is useful, but if you were actually able to label the ancients/barracks/towers/roshan, it'd be even more so. - hahnchen 13:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
It took longer than I'd care to admit, but I annotated the image as you requested, Hahnchen. I am really earning this Featured Article status! DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 06:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I didn't even know Wikipedia had an annotation system, I thought you'd create a new file, but the current system works well. I would label Roshan, and blue labels would be better than yellow. Still a bit unconvinced about the gameplay screenshot. - hahnchen 11:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I've switched them to blue labels, condensed the Ancient clusters and added Roshan. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 20:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
First of all, I've only played the tutorials and one full match of this game. I was terrible at it and got yelled at, so I have no interest in continuing. (90% these nuts...) Because of this, I can't comment on whether the article misrepresents anything about the gameplay. With that out of the way, here are some first comments:
I'm not a fan of that much blank space surrounding the second screenshot. I'd prefer if you narrowed the thumbnail by using two columns for the game features instead of three.
Eh, I still think it's too much. How many other video game sequel articles have two full paragraphs about their predecessors? I don't feel too strongly about it, and if consensus likes it, then whatever, but I'd prefer it be shrunken significantly (to maybe one paragraph in Concept) or removed. Tezero (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Did the critics comment on anything other than gameplay? Graphics? Visual style? Music?
@Tezero I just now went through all the reviews and the graphics and visual style were only mentioned once, with no further mention of the music. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 20:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Provisional support; count this as a support vote if the wrap distance is fixed and Origins is shrunken to one paragraph (or the consensus dictates that this does not need to change). I won't be around to verify whether this happens, so I'm trusting you, DarthBotto. Tezero (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I've fixed up the origins section. I'll find a solution to the wrap issue. ;) DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 19:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Review from JimmyBlackwing
My main focus during FAC reviews is 1a, so that's what I'll be doing here. The review below is a series of notes written as I read through the article.
Why are there two full dates in the first paragraph of the lead? You specify in the first sentence that it was released in 2013, and full dates are tedious to read, so I don't understand the rationale. I would axe the dates aside from the initial 2013—let the infobox handle the rest.
"a beta testing phase that began in 2011" — It seems important to mention that this was a public beta, as indicated by the Release section.
"In most regions, the game is available exclusively through Valve's content-delivery platform, Steam." — This is vague. Which regions don't fit this pattern, and how can Dota 2 be downloaded without Steam? Needs clarification.
"Each match of Dota 2 is independent" — Also vague. Perhaps, "Dota 2 is played in discrete matches".
The semicolon-based structure of the following sentence is very awkward, and possibly incorrect. Here's a rewrite suggestion:
"Located in Each stronghold iscontains a building called the "Ancient";, whichto win,the oppositea team must destroy the enemy's Ancientto win the match." (italics signify an addition)
"DotA developer IceFrog was hired as lead designer" — It would probably be a good idea to remind the reader that IceFrog developed the mod version of the game, and that Valve was the company that hired him.
"lauded it for its" — Losing the "it for" would tighten up the sentence with no loss in clarity.
"criticised" — This is British English, but the previously-used "leveling up" (single "l") is American English. In line with WP:MOS (last time I read it, at least), you have to pick one and stick with it.
"at over" — "of over".
I've addressed all your concerns regarding the lead, as specified above. I will consider how to fix the gameplay section. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 19:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. I haven't been near a computer long enough today to review the rest of the article, but I should be able to finish up tonight. Also, I apologize if my review so far has seemed harsh, particularly in light of your very generous comments about FU2. I keep my reviews all business, which I think sometimes reads like derision or hostility. I have nothing but respect for people who work hard to reach FA. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I hate to say it, but the first sentence of Gameplay is very poor. You don't introduce the genre, the camera angle or the fundamental mechanics, and you dive into technical details ("standard match"—as opposed to what?) that, given the size of the section, are almost guaranteed to scare away the general interest reader. The New York Times Magazine once highlighted (here) Halo: Combat Evolved's opening sentence as a clear, non-technical summary of the game, so I would recommend that as a model. Starting with a game's most basic and accessible elements keeps the general reader from being alienated.
With that in mind, I would recommend having a non-gamer copyeditor look over the section. Most of the first paragraph, for example, is impenetrable to someone who's never played Dota 2. We don't even discover the player's role until sentence five, after being pummeled by abstract concepts ("these two factions are connected by three main paths"; "periodically spawn in groups and traverse the lanes"; "divided by a river that runs perpendicular to the central lane"; "critical differences conferring a variety of advantages and disadvantages to each side") and jargon ("Ancients", "creeps", "spawn", "lanes", "map", "towers"). And there's a total of one wikilink in the opening paragraph, to make things even more confusing.
The phrase "strategically powerful" appears twice in two sentences, and it makes no sense either time.
In paragraph two of Gameplay, we find out that Heroes have "unique abilities" (what's unique about them?), and that they "fill similar roles" (what is a role?) and "accumulate experience" (no mention of how, and no link to experience point) to reach level 25 (no explanation for what this number means in context). Then we learn that they have different "methods of combat" (no example is provided) based on their "primary attribute" of "Strength, Agility, or Intelligence" (what are these, and what relevance do they have to the game?). I know that Dota 2 has a reputation for being arcane, but surely it's possible to explain this stuff clearly and succinctly.
The opacity of the Gameplay section is just one problem, though. It's also too long and packed with snakes, and it contains dead-weight words and structures that could use serious trimming. In a normal review, I'd point each problem out individually, but the issues with this Gameplay section go too deep for that. Again, I recommend getting a non-gamer (if not two or three) to work through it.
Paragraph three doesn't improve things. More unexplained, unlinked jargon ("inventory slots", "items", "non-player characters") and needlessly abstract language ("additional active or passive abilities", "relative power"). I see the word "killing" used six times in five sentences, and "destroying" four times in five. "Gold" appears eight times in as many sentences. The repetition, jargon and abstraction combine to make my eyes cross about half-way through this paragraph.
As an example of the dead weight to be pruned from this section, here's a sentence rewrite suggestion:
"Dota 2 features a variety of seasonal events, which providethat give players with the option of playing the game withaccess to special game modes with newthat alter the aestheticsvisual styles and objectives."
In my opinion, the annotated map is a violation of WP:GAMEGUIDE. I really don't see how it could have a non-technical purpose. I'd axe the map screenshot entirely: it doesn't add anything.
Also, I second hahnchen's comment about the screenshot. It contains very few of the elements described in the text, which makes it less than useful for cluing in the average reader.
I'll be back later to review the rest of the article. The lead was very strong, but the Gameplay section needs an overhaul. I suspect that the article's second half will be clearer and better, though—its subjects are less difficult. I don't envy anyone who has to explain MOBA gameplay in plain, accessible terms. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Review from JimmyBlackwing, continued
"custom Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos map" — The lead refers to DotA as a mod, which is a much more accessible term than "custom map", not least because mod can be wikilinked. And I recommend mentioning that Blizzard made Warcraft here, rather than later.
"created and updated by an anonymous editor known as 'Eul'" — "Anonymous" means nameless, so Eul cannot be anonymous. Also, "editor" is unnecessary jargon. Suggestion: "created and updated by the pseudonymous designer 'Eul'".
A sentence rewrite suggestion:
"After the release of theThe developer of Warcraft III, Blizzard Entertainment released an expansion setexpansion pack The Frozen Throne in 2003, prompting editors to developclones of the DotA mod competed for popularityvariants inspired by the original map, andwith the dominant one being DotA: Allstars, developed by Steve "Guinsoo" Feak was the most successful."
Another rewrite suggestion:
"With the assistance of a fellow clan member,his friend Steve "Pendragon" Mescon, heFeak created anthe official DotA community hub at the website dota-allstars.com and formed a holding company for it called DotA-Allstars, LLC."
"the developer role was inherited by his fellow clan member "IceFrog"." — "a friend, under the pseudonym "IceFrog", took his place."
"The popularity of DotA increased significantly,:as the mapit became one of the most popular mods in the world, and, by 2008,as well as a prominent electronic sports title by 2008."
"In May 2009, as the game's emerging multiplayer online battle arena genre became more prominent" — I have no idea what this means.
"According to Valve'sValve Corporationfounder and managing director, Gabe Newell, the company's investment in Defense of the Ancients began whenwith the collective interest of several veteran employees,—including Team Fortress designer Robin Walker, programmer Adrian Finol and project manager Erik Johnson,— became interested in the mod andall of whom had attempted to play it competitively."
"As their interest in the game intensified, They began to corresponding with IceFrog, inquiring as to whatabout his long-term plans he had for the mod."
"eventually culminated" — "Eventually" is an unnecessary word.
"the company's facilities" —> "the company".
"TheAs a resultantof the surge of traffic crashed, Game Informer's servers crashed."
"Erik Johnson addressed the confusion over the written form of the brand name, citing it as "Dota", rather than "DotA", due to its context as a concept, rather than an acronym for "Defense of the Ancients"." — I would suggest a way to chop up this snake, but I don't understand what it means.
"Shortly after a public questions and answers session by IceFrog on the DotA official website in which he elaborated upon his new recruitmentabout the new game, Valve filed a trademark claim for the name "Dota"., whichAt Gamescom 2011, Gabe Newell discussed assaid that the trademark was a necessary measure for developing a sequel with the already identifiable brand name at Gamescom 2011."
"the right to a trademark for the DotA name" —> "the right to trademark the DotA name".
"due to their views that it was a community asset" —> "which they believed was a community asset".
"asset, so they" —> "asset. They".
As I continue to read this article, it's becoming clear that a basic review isn't going to cut it. The prose suffers from snakes, vagueness and bloat too serious to address here. You need to find one to three copyeditors to work over the entire article, from Gameplay to Professional competition. Until the prose is cleaned up, I'm afraid that I have to oppose this nomination. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. I share JimmyBlackwing's view, as I said right at the start of this review, what, six weeks ago now? EricCorbett 17:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I asked you for additional input then, but you didn't respond. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 19:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Withdraw - With JimmyBlackwing's review, it is apparent that this article will not receive Featured Article status for the time being. It's frustrating no less because many of the suggestions correlate to features from the article that were present prior, yet were recommended to be removed over time by other reviewers. So, if you are surmising I am disappointed, you are correct, as this article's status quo seems to be determined by myriad individuals' personal preferences. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 19:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.