Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/RuneScape/Archive2

RuneScape

Archived: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/RuneScape/Archive1

This article was nominated for FA status before, and its concerns were addressed. --Ed^{talk c E} 16:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - Firstly, there are a few references tagged with "Better Reference Needed". That should be taken care of. But secondly, I'm concerned about the level of prose in some section, primarily the criticism and development sections, which seem very "list oriented" in the way the information is organized. Instead, it should be written in prose format. Fieari 18:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Response- First of all, if you want excellent prose, don't use "firstly" =). The "Better Reference Needed" tags were added to remind us that better citations were needed. As of now, we haven't found any yet, We're still looking. I will make the needed changes to the criticisms and development sections.--Ed^{talk c E} 20:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object — 2a, 2b, 3b.

2b and 3b issues

Improving the prose should come after my 3b concerns, which are that there are too many stubby sections, leading to poor organization. Sections like gameplay should have no subheadings (unless you merge some of those huge runescape lists, which will help for comprehensiveness). List of other organization concerns:

The history section should be one section, not broken up into several version stubby paragraphs. Flow it into a complete work of prose.
Graphics shouldn't need subheadings.
In the gameplay section, each paragraph doesn't need a subheading. For example, the skills section can comprise a paragraph, quests a paragraph, and so on.
The community and criticism sections should be converted to full prose without list format.
I still see some citationneeded tags in the criticism section.
Overall, if you organize correctly and add more/better citations, this will allow the article to meet 3b and the comprehensiveness standard all in one. The information is around, it just needs better organization to fit the FA style of "no bulleted lists and minisections".

2a issues

The prose needs a lot of work, but this should come after organization, citing, and checks for comprehensiveness. Here are some examples:

"In order to succeed in RuneScape, a player must carry out some tasks." - perhaps reword, or remove completely (the critism section should not explain the gameplay; gameplay detains belong in the gameplay section). Thus, the paragraph should jump right into "Tasks in RuneScape..."

Watch an overuse of additive terms, such as "also", "furthermore", "moreover", and "additionally". These are worshipped in scholary works, but shunned on Wikipedia.

Watch out for redundancies, such as "in order to", "himself", "simply".

Automatic speculation alerts = "may be", "some/others" "perhaps".

Version 0.1: The first version began as a one-man project. Andrew Gower started working on the original game in 1998. This version was very different from the RuneScape of today. It had isometric graphics, and was originally titled 'DeviousMUD'. This version was never released to the public. - entire section here needs to be reworded so that the sentences aren't so simple.

This is a ramble, because the article still needs quite a lot of work. I'd be more than willing to help. — Deckill e r 21:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! It really helps so we know what to do! J.J.Sagnella 21:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) I gave you a few examples of what I was talking about (though the prose needs rewording, since I'm unfamiliar with RuneScape). I'd be willing to help out some more if you'd like. — Deckill e r 21:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. But when I remove the bold text and the list format in the Criticisms section, it turned out like this:[1]. It just makes the section into a very long paragraph.--Ed^{talk c E} 22:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do with the criticism section. — Deckill e r 22:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The criticism/reception section needs an overhaul. I recommend looking at Final Fantasy VII or Final Fantasy XI (probably the better choice, as an MMORPG) for a good example. — Deckill e r 22:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestion: Why don't we take all of the criticisms, and blend the comments with the whole article?? Like for the gameplay criticism, we blend it with the gameplay subsection.--Ed^{talk c E} 00:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most gaming FAs (if not all) have that in a seperate section, as the comments themselves shouldn't have to describe gameplay or anything (it should be along the lines of "Gamespot criticized the music, stating that it was "plain and unoriginal for an RPG developed so recently".) — Deckill e r 01:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the user who wanted to improve RuneScape to Good Article status, I regret to say I cannot support this. The article has not even reached Good Article status, and it has been unprotected and nominated for Featured Article. I just briefly looked through the article, and much of the work I have done for it has been undone. Where are the press reviews in the Criticism section? With my Wikilife in crisis, there's not much I can do for this article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Needs press criticism or at least some kind of negative commentary from reviewers in the criticism section. Right now, it seems to be "official reviewers say it is great" versus "players say it is bad." And no, this isn't because of my rancorous hatred of MMOs, though RuneScape enlightened me on that. Just caught my eye. --Zeality 21:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - Reasons stated here below:

1. History and Development: The first paragraph doesn't quote or cite any sources. Who's to say that picture is legit? On top of that, there is no citations backing the first three versions were ever created. They may have been, they may not have been. All I'd ask for here is proof.

2. History and Development, Advertising: Does this really need to be in H&D? I don't believe so. Maybe it *could* serve better under the community, as ads are commonplace now and they do affect the community's opinion of the game.

3. Gameplay, Combat and Skills: Enter the fancruft. Does anyone really need to know the max combat level of both versions and/or the calculations made of them? A fansite would be better suited to that knowledge, or even the RuneScape Knowledge Base. On top of that, if you are going to keep the skills listing, I'd believe Slayer would be better suited to Combat-related, as you must fight the NPCs in order to build experience in that field. In that sense, Construction would be seen as processing as well, due to the fact that you manufacture parts in order to build a house. Lack of citations here, as well.

4. Gameplay, Interaction: This section could use a bit of polish. Why should the Encyclopedia list the hundredth quest for this game? I would understand if you could cite this part, "RuneScape features mini-games for its players, which are activities somewhat like quests but that can be done multiple times. Mini-games take place in certain areas and normally involve a specific skill. Many mini-games involve cooperative efforts or allow players to compete with each other. Popular mini-games include Castle Wars and Pest Control.", but until that happens I'd have to disagree. Citations, citations, citations.

5. Gameplay, Random Events: Could be merged with Interaction since a majority of these require you to perform tasks which require NPC interaction.

6. Community: Cite a few more refernces here. I could easily verify that there are a vast number of players that speak all sorts of languages, but to someone that glanced at this page not knowing that, they'd wonder how you found that out. Adding community criticisms would be best here, too.

7. Criticism: There is no critique here. I don't see much except a few opinions from GameFAQs. Not necessarily the best place to pull criticisms from. You could look around on various fansites, pull a huge list of angry opinions from there and come up with a much better section. Other than that, this section of the article needs a lot of work. Makoto 01:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]