Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Warez/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Warez

[edit]

Article has come a long way, but still needs work. It's been cited by several media organizations and therefore should be brought up to a Featured Article status, as such it needs Peer Review first. Please, rather than getting into a debate about how X is mentioned but Y isnt, lets start by identifying what is outright WRONG first:

  1. Are there grammar, punctuation, or spelling issues?
  2. Are there any significant formatting issues per WP:MoS?
  3. Are there any specific content issues?

Last time (I believe it was in 2003) this was discussed people (Larry Sanger for one) ignored it saying it wasnt encyclopedic and gave very few specifics, merely rants about bias.  ALKIVAR™ 22:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps the biggest, and most obvious, obstacle from this article reaching FA status is the use of unnecessary markup, nonstandard headings, and numerous numbered and bulleted lists. The Wikipedia Manual of Style asks that you use == for headings, instead of ''' markup. There are a number of reasons you did what you did, however, and I understand them - most likely to reducde clutter in the contents and to set paragraphs aside. However, all your various spacing doesn't look good on every browser, and, more importantly, those headings are often unnecessary. They can be removed to make for more flowing sections, and will make sense regardless if you write well enough. With the removal of sub-sub-sub-...-heading clutter to make for better writing, you might also want to consider converting several, though admittedly not all, of the lists into prose. -Rebelguys2 06:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your assumption of my effort to reduce the size of the TOC is correct, that is why many sub sections use ''' instead of ===. You should have seen the List to Prose ratio BEFORE I got to it... as it stands now, I think the list to prose ratio is quite good. The problem is most of the currently remaining lists are lists with each entry being a small paragraph, by changing it into several large paragraphs I actually find the readability rate drops. I made a clone of the article on my home wikiserver and experimented with that, I found it much harder to follow. Do you see anything else more specific that would assist down these lines, your responses seem very general/broad.  ALKIVAR™ 09:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • minor question, what is the difference between the Evil workprint rip off and the other workprint copy screenshots of American Pie. Also, the link to the see another screenshot from A night to Roxbury goes to a deleted image. Garion96 (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The EViL version was a bootleg notorious for release before the movie hit theaters, however it did not have a counter in the frame of the shot. As the commentary regarding workprints mentions the counter, I looked for a version of the film that had the counter, that second workprint shot came from a DVD extra to American Pie. I could have used another movie, but I happened to have a DVD copy of American Pie handy. The other image should not have been deleted as it was not an orphan...  ALKIVAR™ 20:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to have to agree with Rebelguys2 (talk · contribs) that you absolutely must standardize the headings. Making an article featured is supposed to be hard, we do it not because it is easy, but because it is hard (cribbing JFK). Odd use of headings and grammatical errors have to be addressed before the sorts of things that peer reviews are supposed to be about are addressed. If the headings are a no-go, then this article will never make it past its current state. For grammar, I find it best to set aside an hour or two and have a friend (who has never read the article) read it aloud to you, stopping everytime something doesn't sound right. This can fix huge problems in continuity and grammar. -Scm83x 09:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well i've gone and made the heading changes requested... TOC is now 2.5x as long, and at 800x600 is now more than a page long, which is what I had been trying to avoid to begin with as this is something i'm going to be told to fix during FAC. Is there anything else you see that needs formatting changes? Can we now get on to the specific content i.e. the whole reason I asked for peer review?  ALKIVAR™ 10:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're concerned about length of the TOC, you should really consider whether all of the second and third level sub heading you're using are necessary or whether you can just fold some sections together. Also, take a look at some of the TOCs for other FAs. They generally aren't as brief as you want this one to be; if you're going to be thorough, you need a lot of organized content. The content is organized by the headers. And hey, if you write a gripping lead, the user will be sure to scroll down past the TOC, even at 640x480 ;-) -Scm83x 11:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a good article, but still quite cluttered. A few issues:
  1. Take a look at the three sub-sub-headings starting with "Popularity of computers." Are they even necessary? Probably not. They're part of the "rise of software piracy," and the section seems a lot more tight without the clutter of the headings and "These are some causes which have accelerated its growth." It's redundant to have a heading for every topic; dividing your prose into paragraphs is enough for the reader to know you're moving on.
    Ok, I'll take a look into doing that.  ALKIVAR™ 01:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If you're worried about the article getting too long - you're probably right. An article should flow well, look compact yet informative, and ideally stay under 32 KB. If you think "History of Warez" is getting too long, create a page named History of Warez and add a link to the main article instead. One example is the abortion article; they moved a large section dealing with controversy to abortion debate.
    Then people at FAC usually complain that the article is too short due to spinoffs (can you say Catch-22?)  ALKIVAR™ 01:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm not a huge fan of the table right now; it feels too cluttered. Perhaps you could create a cell that horizontally spans over Type, Label, and Rarity, and have the image vertically span over the two rows of Type/Label/Rarity and the description. Since we're looking for "brilliant prose" here, I'd fix the sentence fragments in there, i.e. "A copy made in a cinema using a camcorder, possibly mounted on a tripod."
    I'm not a real fan of the table either, but I think its better than a list for displaying this data, I will keep working on its layout til I get something I'm satisfied with. Ok i'll get to the text content of the descriptions as well.  ALKIVAR™ 01:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I saw the debate on the pronunciation of "warez." ;) Juárez isn't exactly pronounced "where-eS," as there's more of an "h" sound followed by an "ah" sound with an emphasis on the first syllable in Juárez. I don't think either of our descriptions are entirely accurate, though I don't know how easy it's going to be to find a definitive reference regarding word etymology and pronunciation.
    Biggest problem, is its pronounced so many different ways depending on region and dialect that its quite a difficult issue to solve. To-MAY-to, To-MAH-to, and so forth, there are many acceptable variations.  ALKIVAR™ 01:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not agree with the pronunciation presented on this page, as I took many years of Spanish through my education. However, if the pronunciation of the term is contentious, perhaps a section ==Pronunciation== is necessary. Just a thought. -Scm83x 10:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Finally, I finally scrolled down to the "Legality" section today. As such an important and touchy legal issue these days, I think this section could really use some fleshing out. I'm not asking to see the entirely of legal proceedings for and against, but we might look at, for example, the legal precedents set by the RIAA. We could analyze the response and statements of artists working for ASCAP/SESAC/BMI and those organizations themselves. There's no analysis of the very important DMCA and other similar laws. If you feel that you've covered these topics sufficiently in other sections (which I don't), then what is the need for such a small, skimpy section? -Rebelguys2 22:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked WikiProject Law to get on the Legality section, part of the reason I posted this PEER REVIEW was to get people knowledgeable in such fields to CONTRIBUTE, Lately it seems the only active editors to the article are vandals and myself.  ALKIVAR™ 01:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the legal section needs to be updated. Its too short and too much emphasis on the USA. It's not my main legal expertise but I will try to expand it, (if I have time). Otherwise I hope the wikiproject law can indeed help. Btw, I really like the new layout for cam, telesync etc. Garion96 (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The legality section should just be replaced with links to Copyright infringement and Copyright infringement of software. Those are suitable articles for discussing the legality of warez, instead cluttering the main article with different views of every single nation in the world. S33k3r 22:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree those should be linked... but I disagree that they should be the entire contents of the legality section. If anything i think there should be a Legality of copyright infringement article to which all 3 link to. Its too important an issue for small sections in several articles.  ALKIVAR™ 05:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Warez/archive1&oldid=1079721220"