Wikipedia:Peer review/Steam (software)/archive2

Steam (software)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I do intend to take it back to FAC once issues are resolved. however, first we need to know what the issues are, obviously.

Thanks, -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by ResMar

Initial release

I would like to see more information provided in this section on whether or what content distribution networks existed before Steam entered the market, the nature of why updating Counter-Strike was such a problem for Valve's techs, and whether or not content distribution issues was a generally widespread problem.
You need to copyedit the first sentence so as to redistribute where the stress lies. Since you are describing the origins of Steam in a historical manner, you should place the problem (Valve's issues updating Counter-Strike) ahead of the solution (the brainstorming and development of Steam).
Did Valve approach the other companies with its business concept to solicit resources, a partnership, funding, or some combination of the three? You should include this in the sentence, if possible.
Again, Valve decided that it would go alone after its proposals were rejected on approach, so the sentence on its decision to create a platform should come after its rejections, not before.
"before 2002" is not a particularly specific date: can something more precise be provided?
Relic Entertainment's involvement with Valve is technically a partnership, is it not? This language should be included in the sentence, since Relic's shoulder got tapped here.
Not sure how relevant the game never being released on Steam is: if you make a notes section this is good material for that, but otherwise it can be removed without consequence.
Why was this second series of partnerships more successful than the first? What were the partnerships meant to achieve? What did they achieve?
Since the next paragraph describes the public release of the Steam beta the mention of the release of the first mod on the system seems misplaced. Is your timing correct here? If so you need to explain to the reader why it is that a mod was released on the platform before it was made generally available.
How badly did the system choke? Avoid subjectives; use objectives.
What was the World Opponent Network?
The gamers that tested the system in beta are Counterstrike beta gamers, correct? If you so you need to include that it was tested as part of the Counterstrike beta. Also: any particular reason the numerical range is so wide?
The "their" in the next paragraph does not gel—you mentioning specific releases afterwards, but nowhere the companies which were responsible for them.
What makes Valve's partnership with Strategy First particularly notable?
Was it that Gabe Newell was offering the license, or would offer the license?
What engine (presumably, the Source engine).

Profitability

Why did it take until 2005 for third-party games to reach Steam? Does this mean that Steam had been a proprietary system before then? If so you need to make this clearer in the initial development section, and, if you can, explain whether eventually making the system publicly available was or was not an initial goal.
How could a proprietary distribution system be rendered profitable by the sales of its own company's goods? Is this, as I suspect, the point at which the costs saved and margin gained by excising the retail middleman overcame the overall cost of building and maintaining the system?
Why 2007?
The number of games available should precede the number of accounts created.
Seeing as that you cut off your historical overview at 2007, you can't claim that this is a fully adequate historical overview. You should merge this section into the one above and move it up one level, eliminating "History", so that you are left with "Initial development" as your sole heading. This is a significant structural issue that I'm a little miffed the GAN review didn't cover.

General comments

I see that this is the run-up to your first go at a bronze star. You're an a bit of an unusual position: though this article is certainly within rights to be made into a featured article, you aren't the primary author. This isn't something you can't work around, but in my time here I have found that for topics outside of your professional criteria (I assume, of course, that you are not a video game historian of some stripe or another), given how intimate you must become with your sources to bring an article to bronze star quality managing an FAC from the outer line is a particularly challenging task. There are many small gaps in the information presented in this article which, though more or less acceptable from the point of view of a good article nomination, are not acceptable from a bronze-star article. I have reviewed a part of this article and left a list of comments which you would need to address in order to be able to confidently approach a featured article nom; my reviewing the remaining four fifths (!) or so of the article are contingent upon the successful handling of the material in this first quintile. Ready to get digging? ResMar 05:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

alrighty, that makes sense, adn your reviews are very helpful... i'll start on that soon, RL has kept me really busy lately... -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]