Wikipedia:Peer review/Steam (software)/archive1

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

Steam (software)[edit]


* Further information

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because as not only one of the chief contributors and organizers for the Valve task force and a prominent contributor to the video game task force, I feel like the subject matter of this article requires enhanced quality. I recently called for this article to receive a B-Class rating and upon receiving it, I was encouraged by Vantine84 to look to improve it so that it could be ready for a GAN. Upon looking through the article, I do see room for improvement, but also recognize that the touch-ups required are not beyond comprehension. Therefore, I would like some thorough feedback of the kind that could help achieve this feat. DarthBotto talkcont 03:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Mr. V's thoughts:

  • The article is very sectiony, and some of the sections are rather small (overlay, big picture mode, etc.). Can we condense some of the smaller sections? A more bold edit would be to have only three subsections of Client functionality: one for software delivery and maintenance, another for the user interface including the store, matchmaking etc., and another for other functions.
  • History should probably be the first section in the article, per other software GAs like OS X and Windows RT. This will give the reader some context right off the bat.
  • The software delivery and maintenance section is quite detailed, especially the first paragraph. Perhaps it is a bit too technical for the average reader, who has little interest in filename extensions and such. Keep that in mind for the whole article — your average reader is a tech/software layperson.
  • The steam translation server subsection could be moved up into client functionality and perhaps does not need to be a subsection.
  • Most or all of the history subsections could be removed and condensed into the larger History section. The profitability, November 2011 hack, and vulnerabilities subsections only have a few sentences each.
  • The infobox should have one picture. The store picture can be moved or removed.
  • References could use some cleanup. Some of them have not been accessed for a long time and should be checked for link rot. Others are in a raw form.
  • The prose is pretty good but if you want to take this guy all the way to FAC you'll want a copyedit; you can request one from the Guild.

The main issues are ease of reading, i.e. the section/formatting and overly detailed sections. Work on those and GAN should be fine. It has the potential for FAC and between this peer review, GAN, and possibly an A-class review and copyedit you should get the help you need. Keep up the good work! — Mr. V (tc) 10:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from LT910001

Agree with what has been said, the quality of this article is very good, it is very readable. Needs references as stated. One additional thing is that the GA review will require images to not have any issues with copyright. There appears to be one or two flags on the images that may need addressing. I wish you well on your wiki-travels and look forward to this article's GA promotion. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

  • Checklinks found 1 dead links out of a total of 140 links on 23 November 2013 at 05:55.

-(tJosve05a (c) 19:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, none of those suggestions are applicable to this article. DarthBotto talkcont 19:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)