Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Counter-Strike: Global Offensive/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to GA soon, but given the size of the game, I want to make sure I've covered all the main points. Sections like development may need some expanding, and any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few quick thoughts:

  • Breadth looks adequate to me, but I'm not familiar with the sources
  • Anything to say on its legacy? How it affected other games, the genre, the medium? Its records for concurrent players, etc.
  • Gameplay has a lot of jargon to be explained and/or rewritten for a general audience
  • Reception section is clunky with "A of B said X" format (recommend Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections)

  czar 19:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've reworked some of the gameplay and I'll work on the other points soon. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: Hey. I've added a legacy section, but I'm not sure if the content there would be better suited in the post release section, or if it'd be better to just move "Legacy" up and be a subsection of "Development" instead of "Reception". I wasn't able to find anything on how it changed the community or the genre as a whole, besides a few forum posts saying how the game "was very influential". This is why the section is quite short. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd move the single-sentence Awards and Legacy section text into the first paragraph of the Reception as that's the place to set the scene for the section. Single-sentence sections give that sentence a whole lot of emphasis, so it's better to reduce such sectioning as much as possible czar 13:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: What's your opinion on the gameplay section now? I've tried to rewrite it to be more "friendly". Here are all of the changes. I'm not sure how to fix the reception section (I always have this discussion at PR), so do you have any examples of recently promoted articles you've written that I could base it off? Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's more or less fine for GA, but I would still finesse the gameplay basics (types of objectives, length of rounds, weapon options) so that the reader can get a better sense of the game's hooks before progressing into the nitty gritty. Some of the jargon could still be explained too, but that isn't a GA holdup. I made some edits for example. Feel free to ping if there's a specific passage for which you could use feedback
  • File:AWP original and Asiimov csgo.gif—if this is used to demonstrate the idea of weapon skins (since the guns/skins have no specific correspondence to CSGO), wouldn't there be a free use alternative? Say, any libre FPS with weapon skins?
  • For reception, I recently copyedited Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections (though it needs more work), and I'd remove the aggregate stats that mean little to a reader (Does "83 out of 100 based on 38 reviews from critics" mean that it was good? Use the qualitative statements from Metacritic). I personally think the reviewer names add clutter and little reader benefit. For an example of a recent section without them, see Donkey Kong 64#Reception.

czar 16:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Thanks. In regards to the AWP gif, I don't believe there would be a free alternative available because the image is being used to show the way skins change the guns in CSGO, not in general. I've removed the MC ratings and I'll try to streamline the reception further in just a sec. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some tips added to WP:VGG#Reception too. The issue with the GIF is that it could be replaced by free use skins and have the same effect. There is nothing specific to those skins or that weapon in the text that require it to be illustrated that way, right? So the GIF essentially is displaying the concept of weapon skins, and any animation of free use weapon skins would have the same effect. czar 05:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: You're correct in assuming that the only purpose of that gif is to illustrate the way skins change the look of the gun. I chose to do those two skins because they were some of the most iconic (based off their presence on Google Images when searching "CSGO skins"). I've spent the last little while looking over Google Images and Flickr for freely-licensed photographs of real-life guns with wraps/skins/camos on them and I've found none. I've also looked for games that feature skins without copyright and my search came up empty. Do you think contacting WT:GUNS to see if anyone would have a wrapped gun they would be willing to photograph and upload? IMO it'd be better to either use the current gif or to get a photo of a real life gun rather than use a different game's content because it could cause confusion. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking something along the lines of a List of open-source video games shooter that has customizable weapon skins/shaders (or mods that have the same effect). The FPS ones appear to have more Quake space-style guns than CS/COD military-style guns but I didn't take a full look. As long as the 3D model and art design are released under a WP-compatible free license, we should be good. The skin creator might also be willing to take the exact shots you want if contacted. As for being from a different game, as long as the styles are similar, I don't think it would confuse, and you can even specify that the illustration is from a different game but illustrates the same concept. Of course, the free version could also be used in other articles. (But I don't think there's enough contextual significance (NFCC#8) in the article to warrant a non-free visualization here, as the non-free image doesn't show a concept that the reader can't self-visualize from the prose alone.) czar 14:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: I've looked through the entries on that list and I couldn't find any that had a similar art style to CS. I still wish to display skins in some aspect, so I might contact SteelSeries to see if they could release any photographs of their skinned peripherals, assuming the designs wouldn't be copyrighted. Would something like this with a logo on the back be enough to void a claim of CC-BY because they don't actually own the rights to the winged defuse kit icon? Or something like this? Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that Flickr photo, the icon would be {{de minimis}} (copyrighted but too small/insignificant in the image composition to be a copyvio). Ostensibly SteelSeries would own the design of or artwork inscribed on any of its products, in terms of copyright. But the mouse is a utilitarian object, so anyone can take a photo of it without needing SS's permission. The question would be whether the gradient is a unique enough design to be copyright-protected. I would think not but let's ask @Masem czar 14:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few things here: the skinned mouse would be fine as long as the logo itself was not predominately displayed; a gradient in of itself is usually not sufficient for uniqueness of the skin (On the other hand, if a skin has clear art on it, that would be an issue). In the first image if we could isolate the two mice, the first one would be fine, the second would be a problem. Given that we can get a free photo of some of these custom mice, we do need the person that photographs it to issue it as a free license. That first photograph on Flickr, even if the object pictured could all be considered ineligible for copyright, the photograph can be copyrighted due to the photographer's choice of composition and lighting. Hence why we need the photographer to provide that as a free license. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've made a post on WT:VG. Anarchyte (work | talk) 22:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing came of that so I've reached out to SteelSeries directly. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar and Masem: I never got a reply back from SS, so I did more digging and found this: [[:]]. It needs a license review over at commons, but would this work? I'd remove the current gif and place this into the peripherals section. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like Masem said, you want a shot where the logo is not predominantly displayed, as the logo is copyrighted. Perhaps at more of an angle? The YouTube video's license takes care of the photographer's copyright, though. czar 14:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 
@Czar: What about this? File:Steelseries Rival 300 Fade Edition side on.png? Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good and I'd delete the other one czar 05:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: Righto. I'll add the side on image to the article and I've tagged the other Commons image with {{db}}. Should I also G7 the gif? Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you can delete it yourself, or just remove it and it'll be deleted automatically as unused fair use, or you can G7 czar 06:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (feel free to intersperse replies):

I would guess there is an article somewhere or another with the amount of money CS:GO has provided as tournament winnings (an image on reddit was walking around comparing the winnings of Dota 2 to a number of other games, one of which was CS:GO, so I would expect some article or another has a note of the dollar figure).
  • Gameplay seems short, actually. You seem to have caught the highest points, but are missing the influence of the particular map on gameplay, weapon-purchasing strategy, the use of utility (grenades), and the importance/use of teamwork/voice communication off-the-cuff. I might also mention in gameplay or in competition professional strategy development and use.
    I'll try to find an article that goes that in-depth. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Missing here are artifacts from previous games removed (I'm thinking the flashlight--maybe that was removed from CS -> CSS?) as well as the missing spraypaint logos at release.
    • I didn't play CS/CSS so I'll try to dig deep for some sort of related content. By spraypaints do you mean the customisable sprays, used by clicking F (IIRC)? Also, the flashlight does see use in CSGO according to Wikia (not the most reliable, I know). Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not aware of the flashlight working, and was pretty sure it had been removed, but maybe that's because I've got the normal keybind set otherwise. Yes, those sprays. --Izno (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      @Izno: I've seen it used quite a lot on some community servers. I just tried binding a key to "impulse 100" (as Wikia says) but it just inspects the weapon. This is all entirely original research, of course. I doubt any articles are going to comment on flashlights, but sprays might be mentioned in a run-on sentence about the addition of "graffiti". Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: I've added some info about some of the features that were removed. Do you know of any more? Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception is unfortunately limited to pre-/at-release reception; I would expect to see some content about post-release design change reception; you've got now the post-release design changes themselves.
    I'll see what I can do. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs a copyedit--there are more than a few awkward phrasings of sentences. There's an awful lot of passive voice as well; while I'm not a stickler against it, I think that's a lot of the reason some phrasings don't go well.
We don't need to know why Prime was released in the context of Gameplay.
"Majors are notable in that they have larger prize pools. Originally restricted to $250,000, the prize pools for majors have risen, with the first $1,000,000 pool being present at the MLG Columbus 2016." is one copyedit opportunity and puts focus on MLG Columbus 2016 unnecessarily. Are there actual limits now and if so, what are they?
Professional competition might also mention the few notable bannings for throwing matches.
  Done Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Izno (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: I should have a bit more time come tomorrow and in the near future, so I'll try to get to the rest of your ideas soon. I've covered some of them already. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I've replied to a few above and striked the ones that I've done. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bit about cross-platform in the lead is the wrong WP:WEIGHT so I've removed it. The lead also is a bit short. I've re-orged it a bit with the removal of the badly-weighted cross-platform, but there is probably a bit more you can summarize. The development probably needs to be added to for pre-release as on-review it's rather short (so, in general, there is more that can be added regarding the game's development). I would recommend removing the uber-precise dates except for releases; trimming back to monthly is enough to talk about the events that have since occurred. --Izno (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Izno. I'll work on the dates now. What did you mean by "development probably needs to be added to for pre-release"? The section is a tad short, is that what you were referring to? Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's a "tad" short, I think it's just short. But yes, that's what I mean. :) --Izno (talk) 02:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archived. No reason to leave this open as comments have been made and I'm aware of what needs to be fixed. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 23:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Counter-Strike:_Global_Offensive/archive1&oldid=1136449552"