Talk:Steam (service)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 05:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Good Article Checklist

• Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
• Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
• Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
• Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Disambig links:
• Reference check:

Comments: This article is a bit unbalance in regards to Steam's business practices and reports of its accounts. Too often on a gaming site and other tech pages are accounts of its account terminations, sometimes valued at hundreds or thousands of dollars. This has been a contentious aspect of the gaming community. Some of these are more exceptional than others, but it has been well-known minor cases and the fact that several websites operate solely on matters surrounding Steam bans. Lots of minor details I'd like to see covered.[1] Some of the sentences should have an inline citation, but they are typically fine and I believe they are covered all at the end of the paragraph. This article is actually pretty well-written and that makes checking everything a bit dull. I'll keep looking this one over, but I suspect that if you can fix those issues, I'll be able to pass it without concerns. I'll place it on hold though.

I've implemented your suggestions, as I stated on your talk page. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm somewhat confused about a point of policy. Sections of the article that had been integrated into the main body as an effort to remove an NPOV criticism over the last couple years have since been recollected from the body of the article moved to a new Criticism section, generally with edit notes of "Per GA review"... Yet WP:Criticism seems to suggest this is the reverse of what should be happening. Can a reviewer weigh in? (Note: I'm aware that WP:Criticism is an essay and not hard policy, but still...) -- ferret (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Are we reading the same article??

1. Spelling mistakes throughout(1a)
2. The lead not not appear to be sourced correctly,

   Lead: estimated that 75% of all digital games purchased for the PC are through Steam.

   Source: captures 75 percent of the global market for digital PC games through its Steam store

   Not the same thing.(2)

3. What makes http://www.wunderboy.org/docs/gcfformat.php, http://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Steam_rating (a wiki) reliable?
4. Terrible news-like text throughout, such as "In 2012, rumors were perpetuated that asserted that Valve was developing its own video game" (1)
5. The main logo has no caption, and appears to be a trace of a copyrighted logo, so is technically incorrect and has the wrong copyright tag. (6) If it does not meet the threshold of originality, it needs to be demonstrated on the files description.
6. The image File:IncredipedeScreenshot35.jpg has no encyclopedic value. (6)
7. Criticism section is poor, its complaints are about standard industry practices, with few sources provided.

C class.--Vaypertrail (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you please point out all these spelling mistakes? I see an instance of "web site" being split, some preference for "similar" which is not an issue in of itself. "can add an additional transaction fee" can just be "add a transaction fee" for better wording. And these are really minor and not FA level. " captures 75 percent of the global market for digital PC games through its Steam store" is a claim but it is not verifiable with absolute certainty; thus "estimate" is proper. Though yes this is not reliable and should be replaced. The logo does contain the tag for "This image only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Although it is free of copyright restrictions, this image may still be subject to other restrictions. See WP:PD#Fonts or Template talk:PD-textlogo for more information." - Are you disputing that? The Incentipede picture has OTRS permission and is not a NFCC - so it does not need to meet all 10 of the NFCC criteria for inclusion and it gives the example of a notable game. Whether or not it should be used is not a GA matter when it is perfectly acceptable in which to do so given that the NFCC criteria states no other image should be used when that one is freely available. I am still looking over this GA, but this is definitely not a C class article and the issues you present are really minor. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I will look for a better source from the wiki. I found the spelling errors Vaypertrail was referring to, removed the image and made a few other changes. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 06:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

More

Using any of the follows words is rarely appropriate, unless the required sources are provided:

• Speculated, speculates, speculation
• Rumor, rumored, rumors
• announced

The use of the first those terms, should be backed up by at least two third-party sources, preferably not with sources that primay subject is speculation, e.g. macrumors.com

Unnecessary quotes that provide no additional information:

• "hope to expand upon this foundation with more Steam features and functionality in DLC and future content releases".[107]
• "to make [Steam] richer and more accessible for everyone"

Unnecessary details on a subject when there's already a separate article, such as:

• Portal 2
• Steam Machine/Console/Box

The Steam_(software)#Consoles section is mostly just "Newell said has all these great things planned with consoles", report the facts not the news.

The article in general just suffers from being overly detailed aka "WP:FANCRUFT", news reporting news reporting... etc. With the belief "if Valve annouced it/did it, it must be worth mentioning".--Vaypertrail (talk) 11:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you realize that "Fancruft" is just an essay and it is completely different from actual in-depth coverage of a topic? Secondly, this does not even apply and your suggestion here is far above and beyond the GA criteria readings. To the point you are reviewing this against FA level and even then... its questionable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any new suggestions, Chris? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 10:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think it is a ludicrous suggestion by Vaypertrail to suggest that the word "announced" shouldn't be anywhere, and that it would need two sources to be in an article. That's so far away from policy it's unreal. The mentions of Portal 2 are perfectly valid, because whenever Steam is released in a new package, or on a new platform, it seems to have regularly come with that game, and there are no unnecessary details on it. The Steam Machine has a nice small section that is perfectly appropriate for this article, given how Steam and the Steam Machine are intrinsically linked. And for someone who complained so much about spelling errors, I find it highly amusing that I can easily and immediately spot two things wrong with their comment spelling-wise... I suggest that Vaypertrail goes and reads the GA criteria before commenting in the review again. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting to note that Vaypertrail has a history of acting inappropriately on Valve-related articles as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you, so much. I had a feeling something was off because I positively despise Steam's practices and I couldn't find any "fancruft" and by definition, this article and all articles, are going to be in more detail than someone who knows or cares nothing about the subject will "like". There is an attempt to boil something down to proper scope, but I took this hoping to enlighten myself about Steam's success and while the notable issues with the company are present, the article is neutral. Though to be perfectly fair, Vaypertrail, you have more than two mistakes in your post. Lukeno94 is just being nice about it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy break

We seem to have been side-tracked. Do you have any further suggestions, Chris? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 18:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Everyone's been working hard to improve the page since I nominated it- I think we're just about ready for GA status. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 22:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, looks fine. I'll pass it now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

My question about the criticism sections seems to have gone unanswered. -- ferret (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

What a shame, all this useful feedback that has been almost completely ignored or disregarded, which is responded with "oh you can't spell properly and act bad on other articles" then passed anyway. It is now one of, if not the worst GA software mid importance article.--Vaypertrail (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, did the little troll want some more attention? You were not ignored or disregarded, you were told that what you said was flat out incorrect. So forgive me for taking this comment with a fist full of salt. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)