Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Super Smash Bros. Brawl

Non-gamer copy-edits

I know I attract the ire of entire VG project whenever I bring this up, but I'm not sure why it continues to be such a challenge to get some non-specialists to look at VG articles. The problem has been raised many times before, and various remedies have been proposed including forming a reciprocal relationship with the MILHIST project where you would review each others' articles. Did anything come of that?

Since the need for a non-specialist copy-edit is almost always apparent when VG articles arrive at FAC, it should be part of your project checklist before you bring an article to FAC. Since your articles tend to be researched, edited, peer-reviewed, and GA-passed by the same inner circle of people, the need for getting a pair of fresh, ignorant eyes on potential FACs is of great importance.

I don't have an easy answer to the question "How do I find a copy-editor?" as almost every Wikipedian struggles with it. But in reality, the question should be asked and answered before FAC, not during. "Did a completely VG-ignorant editor read this and check for jargon? Can they understand what the heck we're writing?" --Laser brain (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm scanning through all the peer reviews Archive 1, Archive 2, and Archive 3. The following users have given a peer review at sometime in their life:

As far as I see, they are all in the VG project. I was the one that proposed Peer Reviews 2 and 3. In both peer reviews, only Giggy and Ashnard gave really thorough reviews, but they are both members of the VG project. And again, I had tried my best to get third-party reviewers, but to no avail. Honestly, I didn't think this would become such a big issue at the FAC. However, IMO, If the lead and gameplay sections are cleaned up, there shouldn't be any more issues. Development and Reception shouldn't have much VG "jargon". --haha169 (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your VG project issues - If that's what you think about WP: VG, I highly suggest that it, and possibly this discussion, be transcluded over to WP:VG's talk page. --haha169 (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say I have issues with the VG project? I don't, I was just stating the obvious and I don't think it's much different in any other specialized project. The articles are mostly worked on and reviewed by the same group of people. That's not to say the reviews are poor; they are just not done with an eye toward a general audience. From what I've seen, many VG project members are exceptional reviewers. The problem is, they don't recognize overly-specialized content because they are already specialists in the subject. --Laser brain (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understood what you meant the first time. However, I thought you were trying to propose a connection between WP:VG and the outside world - or trying to find people from other projects to help out WP:VG reviews. --haha169 (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, Laser, continuing the discussion on the FAC, I found Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#Gaming_jargon, but none of the words listed there are in the article, with the exception of "playable". --haha169 (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue with gaming jargon I've noticed you mention in this article seems to be with the sentence, "Instead of using traditional health bars, percentage displays are employed, which begin on 0%, but increase as the characters take damage." Imo, up to the first comma it is fine, as "health bars" is a link. However, I think the rest could be rephrased to "Instead of using traditional health bars, each character is alloted a percentage of 0% at the start of the game, and this value rises as they take damage." What do you think? And Laser brain, if there are other problems with gaming jargon, mention them! Don't generalize the issue, as we won't have any idea how to fix the problems you see if you don't give details. Deamon138 (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good idea, Deamon! Thank you. --haha169 (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Laser brain. That sentence you fixed has been haunting me since it was added...good job. *sigh* --haha169 (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of a non-expert reviewing an article such as a non-gamer reviewing a gaming article, isn't this what the FAC process is for? I don't think that everyone that comments on a FAC is knowledgeable on what the candidate article is about, so surely the fact this article has to go through this process should be enough, no? Besides, I think peer reviews have to be done by experts more than non-experts because there are a lot less experts on subjects than the opposite, so you can't guarantee an expert will come along and review it when its up for FAC. Of course, a non-gamer giving a review on a gaming article before it comes up for FAC, wouldn't hurt, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary. Deamon138 (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is: FAC isn't a peer review. Its a process to decide whether or not the article passes FA criteria. So...that poses a problem. Admittedly, an article improves dramatically after passing through FAC, it still can't be regarded as a peer review.--haha169 (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I was going to say basically the same thing as Haha169 but he said it better. :) --Laser brain (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:REVIEW says, "Wikipedia's Peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." Surely that means that the FAC process is more critical (or at least should be) than the peer review process? Okay, I don't really know much about the peer review process (Wikipedia's version that is, I know a fair bit about the scientific version), so have I got completely the wrong idea of how peer review at Wikipedia works from that comment I quoted? Deamon138 (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that's preparing a FAC, not the FAC process itself. The definition doesn't matter right now, though. The problem is getting the article into shape so that Laser Brain does what Ashnard and Fuchs did. --haha169 (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that "preparing" a FAC by peer review is less detailed than the FAC process itself. Or is that not right? Deamon138 (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...I don't understand what you're trying to say. If you meant that a peer review is less detailed than the FAC process itself, yes, that's true. But how does it relate to the subject at hand? --haha169 (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that since the FAC process is more detailed than the peer review process, then it doesn't matter so much that you can't get non-experts on the subject (in this case, non-gamers) to peer review it, as the FAC process should get plenty of non-experts along to have a look and comment so to speak. Deamon138 (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the FAC isn't to be regarded as a peer review, and it is best to find such editors during the peer review process. But that really doesn't matter right now - what matters is to prove that this article is FA-ready. --haha169 (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, and I agree. I was just making comments on the title of this section on the talk page, in response to Laser brain saying, "Since your articles tend to be researched, edited, peer-reviewed, and GA-passed by the same inner circle of people, the need for getting a pair of fresh, ignorant eyes on potential FACs is of great importance." But anyway back on the topic of this article, can he or anyone else see any other problems with this article containing "gaming jargon"? Deamon138 (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found one, and replaced it. (See article's history). That's just about it... --haha169 (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]