Wikipedia:Peer review/RuneScape/archive3

RuneScape

Please refer to /Archive1 and /Archive2.

This is the 3rd peer review being requested for RuneScape. We're looking towards GA status for this. Sections I think might have some problems could be RuneScape#Criticism, since we've been having debates over WP:V on this.--Ed^{I'm lonely, talk to me} _contribs 18:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked over this do in depth but here are some of the things that I could pick out:
Finnish the Todo list items
The critisism section needs work. I understand the problems with it, but the more the better.
Idealy, the history section should be big enough for it's own article
The sever information should include more about the technical asepcts, not just the location

--Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 20:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random comments as they come to mind:

The history/development section needs to flow better, with more variation. "Gower began (re)writing..." starts off three different sentences, and the "began" is redundant anyway.
A Runescape Classic screenshot would perhaps be more valuble than the DeviousMUD shot, although having both would be acceptable. Nifboy 20:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Players can also choose their gender." This lone sentence sticks out awkwardly; find some way to better integrate it into the text.

More as I think of them. Nifboy 20:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the user who suggested we collaborate to improve the article to GA status, I believe that only two more non-trival improvements are needed before this article is ready for GA:

We need a section about membership. Three paragraphs should be sufficient: one about the costs and methods of payment, one about benefits, and one about how it has affected the game.
Bring back the press reviews, but ensure they are written in a neutral manner, and confined to a maximum of two paragraphs in the Criticism section.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very impressive. You're well on you're way, however, one thing stuck out in my mind:

All of the images need fair use rationales.

Good work, Green451 21:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? All the images are licensed under the GFDL, are tagged for fair use with {{game-screenshot}} or, in the case of the logo, fair use with permission; provided we don't try to scam people or disparage Jagex (regular editors come down like a tonne of rectangular building things on clever people who try it). CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 01:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sent a message to Green's talk page. --Ed^{I'm lonely, talk to me} _contribs 01:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, didn't check that, I was trying to keep everything on this page. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 01:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message left on Ed's talk page:

I'm not talking about fair use templates, I'm talking about fair use rationales. See [1] this image description for an idea of what I mean.

Per the image use policy, the uploader of a fair use image must provide reasons why he/she believes the image qualifies under fair use laws. The standard reasons given are:

It serves to illustrate an important point in the article
It is of low (web) resolution (preferably no more than 500 pixels in either direction)
It does not interfere with the copyright holder's ability to use/sell the image/product
No free image could effectively illustrate the point you are trying to make

Look at any of the CVG FP's, and you'll see that they all have fair use rationales for their respective images. Hope this helps, Green451 17:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 03:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism section has no credence whatsoever. Using a user-submitted review from GameFAQs is not acceptable; Wikipedia content should be synthesized from reliable sources. The other source used is RuneScape's own website—hardly suitable for backing up claims critical of the game. The majority of the section, however, does not even have citations; it is largely original research. Punctured Bicycle 04:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never liked that section; neither have a few other editors, apparently. What gets me is why the professional game review (from PC Gamer UK magazine) I dug up and copied to the talk page a while back gets no mention. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support the criticism section either. Perhaps we should just blend the statement with the rest of the article. The Press Reviews, however, were deleted at some point in time by an editor. But that was last month or so.--Ed ^Trick? or _Treat? 02:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the fansites debate, the Criticism section has also been the subject of edit wars. Please make up your mind what you want:

A Criticism section full of press reviews about the game. More verifiable, but full of pro-RuneScape bias (thus violating NPOV).
A Criticism section full of player criticisms (sourced from GameFAQs). More NPOV, representing player criticisms, but less reliable.

I am trying to find a middle ground, where we keep the current Criticism section (which comprises mostly player criticisms), but add several paragraphs with press reviews. By containing both player criticisms and press reviews, the Criticism section will be both verifiable and NPOV. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV says: "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source." If all significant views published by reliable sources are "pro-RuneScape", then so be it. I see nothing in policy that says we must represent unreliable, self-published views of players. Who is to say these criticisms are representative of players, anyway? I am a former player and never held the views expressed in the criticism section; I find it hard to believe that a significant portion of the 9 million players do, either. Yes, some players on message boards and GameFAQs complain of these issues. On the other hand, some—perhaps most—players don't even participate in such discussion and could care less. The bottom line is we have no authority to determine which player views are significant; surveying message boards and GameFAQs in an attempt to do so constitutes original research. Punctured Bicycle 06:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Journalists, like at PC Gamer, are professional, trained reviewers; if PCG isn't a reliable source I don't know what is. But if all the criticism is from GameFAQs, we might as well let the vandals write that section. So what if most, if not all the reliable source reviews are positive? RuneScape can't help it if it is a good game! Why would Jagex deliberately produce a bad game? CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 19:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]