Talk:Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 12:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of my favourite games ever, will review soon. Some preliminary points below. FunkMonk (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a good deal of duplinking, try this script to highlight them:[1]
First sentence under Reception needs a citation.
The synopsis section contains info that doesn't simply summarise the game. The following info needs citation: "The events of Warcraft III occur after a timeskip from Warcraft II. This period was originally intended to have been documented in Warcraft Adventures, but was cancelled mid-development. The story was recommissioned in novel form."
It seems you might want to separate the references from the story footnotes, looks confusing now.
The infobox image could need a proper fair use template.
This article[2] is listed as a possible source on the talk page, so I wonder if it could be used, or if it should just be removed from the talk page (it's in some weird template).

@FunkMonk: Thanks for taking the time to review this. I removed most duplinks and added the required cite (that's the problem with stuff cited at Wikidata). Those sentences in the synopsis section were a relict of the article before my rewrite, I removed them as they no longer make sense, those things are already in the development section with cites. As for the references, I had them in a notes section but another editor disagreed. If you have a suggestion how to put it better, I'm all ears (I won't mind removing those refs as well though). I added the standard template to the infobox image (it was uploaded in 2006, long before those templates existed). The link you mention is already used as ref #65; I'll remove the template from talk. Regards So Why 14:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that editor doesn't seem to have given any reason, and notes sections are standard, so I think you can just put it back. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to ping the editor, though, and see if we can get an explanation: Lee Vilenski. FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I wish I knew why I made that change, but I have no idea. I'm usually pretty for using notes like this, so I'd completely ignore me, and change it back. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I undid it. Regards So Why 09:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, that settles it. FunkMonk (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"a slight angle that only be zoomed" Can? Y
Link Starcraft at first occurrence outside the intro. Y
"Several years before the events of the games" By this time in the article body, you haven't mentioned the Warcraft series, perhaps a good place to name and link it. Y
"the surviving combatants were herded into internment camps" By who, and combatants from all factions? I don't remember this being explained in the game? Source added
"Arthas slays Mal'Ganis" Not presented until this point, so the reader doesn't know who it is. Mentioned in the fifth sentence of the paragraph

Ah, missed that. FunkMonk (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The Prophet(Later revealed to be 'Medivh')" Space after parenthesis? Y
"the Lich King ," Unnecessary space. Y
"Meanwhile, the Warsong Clan" Not introduced, say they are orcish. Y
"betrayer from Warcraft: Orcs & Humans" Link. Y
"After the success of Warcraft II and Warcraft II: Beyond the Dark Portal" Could give dates for context. Y
"press conference by Rob Pardo" Present. please elaborate

Present the person, what is his role? Like you present Mike O'Brien. FunkMonk (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh,

Done So Why 12:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"As a result of this design choices" Plural or singular here? Y
You don't need to spell out full names of people after first mention (such as Rob Pardo). Y
"the game didn't change" Contractions are discouraged. Y
"music on a separate soundtrack" What is meant by soundtrack here? A disc? In that case, it is a misnomer. Y
Anything on the voice acting? I remember it as a pretty notable part of the game experience. ~~Will look for more sources...~~
- Could not find more online. Information possibly exists offline in old magazines but I can't find it (I used all resources I have access to through the Wikipedia Library as well). So Why 19:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where was the orchestral music recorded, and by who? ~~Will check...~~
- Not possible Best I can tell from the sources available online is [3]. Judging from the booklet scans found while searching the web, there is no information apart from "Blizzard" (see official entry, which I added). SoWhy 19:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have the manual, if you do not, which might have the answer to the who if not where (it should be the Jason Hayes group--the group imploded after doing the WoW classic soundtrack). --Izno (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds good, maybe the manual is online somewhere? FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I got mine online. The copy I have does not have credits. (My digital War2 manual does.) --Izno (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have the original manual as well but it only credits the people mentioned with the music and does not mention any orchestra. Regards So Why 07:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems an oversight that there is little to no word on the visuals/design. There seems to be plenty of expansive sources available on this, and it is a very distinct feature of the game. ~~Doing...~~
- Added a short paragraph. Honestly, I'm at a loss what exactly to write here. If you think there should be more, can you provide some examples? So Why 19:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm thinking character and environments, they are very bright and slightly anime like, and you'd have to mention Samwise Didier somewhere. This article[4] deals with a bit, I'm sure there's more out there. FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  @FunkMonk: Well, Samwise is apparently not notable enough for Wikipedia. What I meant though was examples of other WP articles that contain such language for me to know what to look for / write about. Regards So Why 07:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Okay, I added some more info but I could not find any other sources talking about the artwork in detail. Regards So Why 09:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  There is an artbook that was sold with the WarIII ROC Collectors Edition, which looks like it is sold separately. Amazon indicates coverage of WarIII there. --Izno (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  
  In the related works, there are other books listed published by Blizzard or someone working with Blizzard, some of which may also be relevant (Art of WoW, Art of Blizzard Entertainment, WoW: Ultimate Visual Guide). --Izno (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  @Izno: Sorry if I was a bit unclear. I meant I couldn't find any more sources online, especially not secondary sources. I know these guides exist but I don't own them and have no way of accessing them as German libraries are not known to stock video game art guides. Regards So Why 12:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  I assumed you meant "online". As for access, I would be skeptical if at least one member of WT:VG did not own a copy of one or another of the above. Go forth and collaborate. ;) --Izno (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Right you are. I posted it to WT:VG and WP:REX. Let's see if someone can help. Regards So Why 13:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good development, take your time. If this was going to FAC, such info would be required, and all such sources should have been exhausted. This is of course only GAN, but it can't hurt. FunkMonk (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: So far no takers. Any guidance how long we should wait? And do you think that it's a deal breaker if the section is not further expanded? Because once I get my hand on the information, I'll expand the section, no matter the rating of the article at that time. Regards So Why 20:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's no deal breaker, I'll give it a couple of days and then I'll pass it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: Fine by me. If you are in a Warcraft-mood, I also nominated the expansion for GA *hint hint*

Regards So Why 17:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I saw! But I feel that closely related articles should be reviewed by different reviewers when possible, so that the input will be more diverse, and the articles aren't pushed in any one direction... FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Curses, foiled again!

So Why 18:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it stays another month, I'll give it a shot... FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"In January 2003, Blizzard announced that the expansion pack will be titled" Why present tense? Makes it look like the game is still to be released... Y
"available in four different box arts" Available with? It is hard to be in a box art? Y
"these inspired the fruition of the multiplayer online battle arena genre" and " paved the way for the multiplayer online battle arena genre". Isn't it sufficient to mention this under legacy? Y
"and that the variety of factions and the balance between those factions." Seems something is missing here. Y
"After Warcraft II: Beyond the Dark Portal" Link. Y
I wonder if anything could be said about the game's influence on later releases in the Warcraft franchise. The Frozen Throne article already contains mentions that those events directly tie into WoW. Is that enough?
A brief mention here maybe? Maybe in the section on the expansion, just a short sentence? FunkMonk (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Y
"before they can corrupt the World Tree" Only mentioned in the intro, which should not have unique info. Y
"reviewers praising the game's... voice acting" The article body only states one reviewer called the acting "mediocre"... ~~Doing...~~ Y

@FunkMonk: First of all, thanks again for all those annotations. I took the liberty to mark them in your comment. All changes were made with this edit. I'll check the rest later as it requires more reference hunting. Regards So Why 07:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good so far, added some replies above. FunkMonk (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on it when I get home and ping you once I'm done

Regards So Why 12:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: Okay, I did what I felt able to do, see notes above. Regards So Why 19:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this looks good now, so will pass, but of course, if you get the additional sources, would be nice to add. FunkMonk (talk) 07:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Sure thing, will certainly do! Thanks for taking the time to review it! Regards So Why 09:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]