Talk:Minecraft/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jesse V. (talk · contribs) 02:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review

This section is supposed to be edited only by reviewer(s); please, leave your comments in the Discussion section below. The reviewer(s) will cross out issues when they have been sufficiently addressed.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	~~"such as large spiders, skeletons, and zombies spawn" lacks a comma before "spawn" "cows, pigs, and chickens, spawn" has one. They should be consistent.~~ ~~The word "have" should probably be removed from "as sales of the alpha version of the game have expanded".~~ "The music in Minecraft was chosen to be one of the best video game soundtracks of 2011 by the video game blog Kotaku" is a passive sentence and then specifies the subject. "The video game blog Kotaku chose the music in Minecraft as one of the best video game soundtracks of 2011" reads better. ~~In "Best Downloadable Game of 2010 title", the term "title" is redundant.~~
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The opinion "The game has a complex physics engine" doesn't seem to be covered by the provided reference. Personally, I think it's a fairly simple physics engine (things don't roll, or interact much, etc), a reliable reference is going to have to convince me otherwise. ~~Remove "helpful" from "The project was a helpful way to visualize urban planning ideas" or state who said that.~~
	2c. it contains no original research.	~~Remove "already" from "and is already in the planning phase".~~
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	~~File:Minecraft_city_hall.png has some issues with its copyright. At the very least, the blue "to the uploader" box should be resolved.~~
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

This article looks really good, and I want to thank everyone who put their time and effort into it. I know from experience how hard it is to bring an article up to Good Article standards. All concerns have been addressed, and it appears to me that it follows the remaining criteria for a GA, so I'm going to pass it! :)

If I had to make one suggestion, it would be to add |archiveurl=, |archivedate=, and |deadurl= fields to all the references. This article relies so heavily on sources on the Internet, and webpages are notorious for being moved or deleted over time. Fixing deadlink is really annoying, and sometimes a reference is impossible to replace. This linkrot is essentially countered by adding a backup link to an archive, such as to WP:WEBCITE. Doing this is not a requirement of the GA nomination, so I'm not requiring it now, but I think archiving the links will pay off in the long run. • Jesse V.^(talk) 02:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thanks! --Futuretrillionaire (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great job to everyone who helped turn this into a Good Article! - M0rphzone (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Please refer to the issues in the table above by their numbers (eg. 1a1 for first issue with "prose" criterion).

Y 2b1 -I've changed the wording. It now says the game's physics system is unrealistic rather than complex. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Y 6a1 -I've added more details to the fair use rationale. However, I can't do much about the "blue box". It's usually handled by a bot, patroller, or an admin.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I added image has rationale=yes. Vacation^nine 22:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Y 2c1 -Removed "already".-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Y 2b2 -Added attribution (Carl Manneh) to the somewhat opinionated statement. Also did some rewording in that paragraph because it contained some close paraphrasing. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 2b2 hasn't been striked yet. Is the issue unresolved?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been resolved, I just forgot to strike it, which I have just done. I'm still reviewing the remaining aspects, so even though those issues have been crossed off, that section is still "?" until I finish. • Jesse V.^(talk) 19:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Y 1a1 -Added comma. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Y 1a2 -Removed "have".-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Y 1a3 -Fixed grammar issue. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Y 1a4 -Removed "title". -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]