Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dota 2/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2016 [1].

Dota 2 edit

Nominator(s): ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC), DARTHBOTTO talk 02:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dota 2 is a very popular video game that is played globally, with professional tournaments that often have prize pools with millions of dollars. The article originally had a failed FA nomination in July 2014, but after working myself on it for the past year or so, fixing many of the issues raised, I believe it's reached a stage where it could be nominated again. First time I've ever done this though, so tell me if I did anything wrong. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • From "Gameplay", paragraph 1: "Two five-player teams, referred to as the Radiant and Dire, compete in matches on an asymmetrical playing field." Is it actually asymmetrical? (I have not played Dota 2, although I do play League of Legends, which has a rotationally symmetrical map.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has a general symmetrical shape, but there are a number of features, such as Roshan's pit, that make it asymmetrical. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is, actually. Rosh pit exists on Dire side, and pathways leading into the river aren't the same on both sides, among other various differences. It's not big enough to make it unbalanced though, and you could even make the case that it shouldn't belong in the article anyway. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. (It could be claimed that a reliable source is required for the statement, but in this case we may get away with it.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

N edit

  • Article is missing two major pieces of data: highest watched Dota2 game; and how much money it generates for Valve. Nergaal (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why does the most watched game matter, and how would you even source that? And the article does have some info on what the game has made for Valve. That info isn't public until being directly announced by Valve however, so I don't believe a lot of articles reported on that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to this reference by Kotaku, 2015's revenue from the game was ~$238MM. However, I don't believe that is a major piece of information, much less so while concerning the highest viewership for a game of Dota 2. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 09:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article could be used, still, as I don't see why not. A single sentence should suffice. EDIT: just added it as "By January 2016, sales of in-game cosmetics had earned Valve over $238 million in revenue, according to the digital game market research group SuperData". ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is relevant to show the impact of the game. If you say esports to a regular folk he will ignore you, but if oyu say x million viewers is a different thing. I know for LoL the finals have had over 20M, so I assume there must have been one with millions in Dota2. Nergaal (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I found this, but this is not something you'd want to add as a reliable source. Also found this, but I think this fits better in TI4's article than in this one, but it could be added. There are eSport specific websites that give relevant info, but I thought they would be challenged here and eventually removed, so I didn't bother. EDIT: I just added "Concurrent viewership numbers of professional Dota 2 matches have reached upwards of two million." in the reception section, as it seemed more relevant there. Thoughts? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • Second one seems good for both articles. For somebody outside the area it is much easier to gauge the impact if you say sometimes 20M ppl watch a game. Outside of a very few select sports events, that figure is impressive. Nergaal (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • Agreed, however the same article states only 2 million watched it at it's peak, with 20 million across the entire tournament (doesn't seem to be unique viewers). However, that's still pretty impressive. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the player base? How many concurrent players have there been? Nergaal (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Player base is shown on the official website. 13 million active players as of July 2016. For concurrent players, it broke 1 million last year (source). CurlyWi (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The concurrent player base was more notable (and easier to find articles on) than the overall total. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dota 2 player here, there are a couple of minor errors in the gameplay section. Destroying all six of the enemy team's barracks allows for special creeps for the attacking side to spawn more frequently with significantly enhanced health and damage, known as "mega creeps." Destroying barracks has no effect on the frequency of lane creep spawn, they spawn every 30 seconds regardless of whether they're mega or normal. Roshan will respawn 10 minutes after being killed. This was changed in gameplay update 6.79 in October 2013 to the following: Roshan will respawn at a random time between 8 and 11 minutes after death. One other thing, from the release section, In March 2016, a large update fixed many long-standing bugs and issues with the game, while also adding many community requested features. The game receives a major update every 2-4 months, fixing bugs and adding new content/features. I'm not sure why this specific update is worth mentioning over all of the others. There was nothing particularly revolutionary added in it. It might be better to just mention the fact that the game is continuously in development and gets regular content updates. Other than that everything looks good to me. CurlyWi (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may be thinking of super creeps, because I'm 95% sure mega creeps do spawn more frequently than normal creeps. It's how they overrun the base so quickly, excluding their enhanced stats. Not sure on the exact numbers however, but maybe this shouldn't be mentioned anyway. Also, I'll could change the Roshan thing to say around every 10 minutes. And I added the update article because it was a large, named update that was reported on by a reliable source. 99% of the other updates do not get the same treatment, unless they add a new hero or something, and at that point it should be added to the article. If more people have issues with this though, I'll remove it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

***I tested it in game to make sure. In all 3 scenarios, no barracks destroyed (normal creeps), some barracks destroyed (super creeps), and all barracks destroyed (mega creeps), lane creeps spawn exactly every 30 seconds. It's possible that it worked differently in an older version of the game (I started playing in 2012), but in the current version it 100% does not effect spawn frequency. The creeps pressure the base simply by being much stronger than their normal counterparts. They also give much less gold/experience when killed allowing you to gain a gold/experience lead over the other team. As far as the update goes, from a player perspective I would consider it to be fairly trivial, but if the reliable source thought it was important then fine. I don't feel strongly about removing it, its inclusion just seemed odd to me. CurlyWi (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Really? I'll remove it then, but I could have sworn they spawned more frequently. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

czar drive-by edit

MOBAs are infamously hard to explain, so I suppose you have some idea of what lies ahead. Here are some assorted thoughts, most from my usual readability advice:

  • Gameplay should scaffold to sufficiently explain what's happening. First, the overall objective and subgoals (overview), then description of the play field in which this happens, description of the intricacies of the main game, and when finished, those of the subgoals. Can't launch into the minutiae without an understanding of the base objectives and mechanics.
    • Yeah, but how well do you think the article currently does this? I could have added a lot more detail regarding the gameplay (or alot less), and I also debated whether I compare the features of gameplay to LoL, while also keeping it accessible for those new to MOBAs in general. In the end, it's written like the reader is completely new to MOBAs, without any direct comparison to any other game. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dota 2 can be explained without comparison to LoL, so a good decision on your part. --Izno (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gameplay still launches into the nitty gritty without explaining the point of the game. It puts the description of the field and the characters before the explanation of the goals. I'd revisit the scaffolding—every sentence should necessitate the next
  • I'll take a look at it then. It all makes sense to me, but I have hundreds of hours with the game, so it helps to have somehow unfamiliar with the game state their opinions. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added some atop [2] with comments. I wouldn't look to other FACs as being great models for Gameplay, especially since Dota 2's gameplay will lose readers a lot faster than most articles. Radiant and Dire = jargon. No need to mention it more than once. Readers will know them as the "teams". czar 07:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True, they are only relevant to mention once and have no real effect on gameplay (does in the pro scene, but that doesn't need to be mentioned). Some of your edits made things less clear, but hopefully now it's better than it was yesterday? And comments on readers not understanding what a "player" and "base" are, should we assume they have zero knowledge of any terms? There should be a point where somebody who is new to gaming and never heard of Dota before can still understand what a base and player is. I mean, these are not even gaming terms specifically. If you can improve it, go ahead, but I can't think of a way myself. Also, I was thinking about adding a screenshot showing the Ancient, which would help readers understand the significance of it. And yes, the map is asymmetrical. I would have added this to the article, but I didn't think that would be fair use (I don't upload media often). This image from the MOBA article can also be used, perhaps edited to state Radiant and Dire instead of Team 1 or Team 2, as to show that Dire is always top right and Radiant is bottom left (which can't be changed). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* "the latter of which being an act called" – concision here

  • Dateline in the dev section: dates should be generalized (not specific) when the date/month doesn't have any significant import on the sentence. But even in general: don't provide more detail than necessary for a broad understanding or else risk losing your readers.
    • Any specific examples? You could say the exact date for all them isn't that important, besides the announcement and release dates. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. When does including the date help the sentence? It's a WP trope to use "On Jan X, 2016, Z happened" but it's also unhelpful. Needs to tell the overall narrative, not serve as an almanac of announcements
  • Fair enough, but we should still list the exact day of announcement and release, correct? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If appropriate. Usually I mention the event's name and month if it was part of something, otherwise the announce date isn't that important (people can look it up if they want). Release date is a bit more consequential, but I even relegate those details to footnotes (if different across regions) because it makes for boring prose. czar 03:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well the only exact dates in the article now are the annoucement and release dates. All others have been generalized, and I don't think people should have an issue with that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Very hard to follow the different Dotas in the dev section. Think about someone unfamiliar with Dota reading this, and if you wouldn't change anything, see what a copy editor thinks

    • They could be written in full to avoid confusion (Defense of the Ancients), not a bad idea. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain jargon on first usage, especially technical terms like "mod"
    • I'd agree, but modification isn't even a used term for the word, so would it really need this? Even kids (due to Minecraft) know what mods are, but maybe not "modifications". ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to a definition of terms can also be sufficient
I don't recall it doing so when I first made this comment, but anyway that's the general advice czar 03:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
* Summarize the aggregate opinion with human-friendly context, e.g.,

The game received "mixed" reviews, according to video game review aggregator Metacritic

rather than

The game was met with very mixed reception. GameRankings and Metacritic gave it a score of 57.52% and 59 out of 100 for the PlayStation 2 version, and 55.25% and 58 out of 100 for the PSP version

* Most of the level 3 headers are superfluous and can be struck

    • Which ones? I think they all fit and are needed to provide section breaks. Cramming them all under one section would be going backwards, but that just my opinion ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them. For instance, if the does the documentary section need to be on its own and can it meld into the other sections more fluently?
  • I already merged it with the development section, per another user's comment. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Group statements, such as "Reviewers praised X" in the Reception, are challengeable and require immediate citations. If no single source summarized it as stated, you need multiple citations to show that some reviewers indeed praised X.

    • I'll go through the reception part in a bit, I've focused more on the other sections as they've needed more work. But it does look like everything is properly sourced. A claim and then 2-3 sentences after that state the same thing with sources should be fine? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ya
  • I would think that there's plenty more to say on Reception and Legacy, like pages more and certainly enough to split the two. Most pertinent is where are all of the sources that place Dota 2 in comparison to Heroes of the Storm and League of Legends? There are reams written on the merits of each written in comparison with the other.
    • There should be, but I've tried to look for articles discussing the game's legacy and worldwide popularity, but couldn't find much. Nearly all of the recent articles written on Dota 2 are about the eSports scene, which would fit in the pro competition section instead. And regarding the articles comparing various MOBAs, I debated if they should be put into the gameplay section, but didn't think of putting them here. Not against it, but couldn't find the best way to write it in. An article like Starcraft has a better legacy section, but only because articles were written about it a decade after the game first released, which isn't the case with Dota 2 currently. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much a legacy by the history books but its standing in comparison to the genre and industry in the years following its release
  • Well I could try, but the article doesn't even mention League of Legends, so it would be somewhat odd to have a section with strong comparisons all of a sudden. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this article would be complete without discussing its role and competitors in the MOBA, or as I prefer dotalike, genre—especially with how it's been covered in the press czar 03:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I could try, I guess. You have any articles I could start with? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some stuff between Reception and Legacy: [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] eh [16] czar 07:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I have no idea how to start off with this. If you could start with single sentence, please do. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May not have time for a full review, but I think these points are a place to start. czar 22:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Czar: after further edits. Hopefully now most of your issues have been addressed. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't have time for a full review at the moment, so these are just passing comments. Feel free to do as you wish with them czar 23:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Czar: Would the article be close to FA once the issues (mainly gameplay introduction) are settled? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be able to tell without reading more meticulously (1a being the hardest part of FAC)—by the way, I think I saw you mention somewhere that you would prefer to give FAC reviews through direct edits and there's nothing wrong with that. Offhand, with this drive-by, I think the reception still looks short at first glance for a major game and I see inconsistencies with the work/publisher fields in the sources. Most online sources doing creative work and regular original reporting are italicized, but at the very least the work/publisher params should be consistent between citations. Also I'd be surprised if there haven't been a number of sources written on highlight heroes and/or the game's fanbase besides the direct professional competition (online communities, fan action around The International, etc.) And the lede: what would you do if you asked me what Dota 2 was and I told you about its release dates? The first paragraph of the lede should introduce to the topic, its gameplay, perhaps hint at its importance/notability. Save release info for the Release section of the lede and so on. czar 03:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I normally just go with website these days, is that fine if I make them all list that instead of work/publisher? And surprisingly, articles on specific heroes don't actually exist from what I've seen. Not to the affect of something like Overwatch, at least. There are articles written on things like cosplay though, which has also been getting officially sponsored by Valve at recent events. However, I didn't include this due to debate over how notable it really was, as well as the sources that reporting on it weren't considered reliable. (I tried to only use sources listed at WP:VG/RS) ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Website" is the equivalent of "work", for creative sites. You'll want to use "publisher" for Metacritic and non-creative sites. I see a fair amount of sources on "how to play Dota 2" in the video game reliable sources custom Google search. That type of stuff makes for good examples. "Popular characters for new players included X, Y, because they Z." There's a bunch on community in my links above but also [17] czar 07:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: Alright, I'll get around to it later. Also, do FACs have a time limit in which they must have a verdict before it's removed due to a lack of one? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The coordinators are pretty generous as long as there is continued activity, but if there is insufficient support and little interest 4–6 weeks in, they'll be itching to close czar 09:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Famous Hobo edit

As someone who knows nothing about how this game works, I feel I'll be able to properly gauge whether this article makes sense or not

My biggest problem with this article is that it seems to suffer from a lot of "In 20XX, this happened, and in 20XX, another thing happened. The professional competition is the biggest offender of this. I would like to see your opinion on the matter, as it does become a bit tiresome reading through the same type of in 20XX over and over again.

  • Do we just remove dates then? I agree that it's a lot, but it would be worse stating everything without them, wouldn't it? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't have to be completely removed. Rereading through the article, I suppose they're fine, but just know that I may not be the only editor who brings up this issue

Lead

Solid for the most part, but the structuring is a bit all over the place. The development is spliced by the games reception, and the professional competition section comes afterwards, when it appears before the reception section in the article

  • Do they have to be placed in the same exact order? I think the last edit I did fixes one half of your problem. 04:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
There is no exact order that the information needs to be in for the lead, it's just a bit different from other video game article leads. Anyway, the lead is well written, and it's solid the way it is.

Gameplay

For the most part, I completely understand how the game works, but thre are a few points that kind of confused me

  • Is there only one map? I feel this should be mentioned early on.
  • Players are also able to "deny" allied units and structures by destroying them, which then prevents their opponents from getting full experience. I really don't understand this sentence. Does one team benefit from the other team's allied units? That doesn't make sense. Also, why mention "deny"? That word, unlike "lane", "creep", and "barracks", is not mentioned again. Why not just simply say "Players are also able to destroy allied units and structures, which then prevents their opponents from getting full experience."
    • There is only one map, not sure if other MOBAs are the same, but I didn't think to mention the possibility of it not being that way. And I thought the "deny" part was clear enough. By doing that, you only allow the other team's player (in lane) to get half experience, which is always beneficial for the player, as it slows their progress. I could have written way more info, going into greater detail, but I tried to keep it accessible for people reading on the game for the first time. I'm not sure on the best way to re-write this part if it doesn't make sense, hmm. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, I think I get it. Sorry, the sentence at first seemed a bit contradictory, but I understand it now.

Development

  • An expansion pack for Warcraft III, entitled The Frozen Throne, was released later that year; and a series of Defense of the Ancients clone mods for the new game competed for popularity. Just want to clarify, these clone mods were made specifically for The Frozen Throne?

*MMR is updated based on if a player's team won or loss, which will then increase or decrease, respectively. Shouldn't it be "if a player's team won or lost"? You use to past tense for win, but the present tense for loss

  • I'm not 100% sure, but I think all later versions of DotA required the expansion pack, due to assets being used from it. And yeah, that was just a typo I didn't catch, going to fix it now. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Release *On June 12, 2015, Valve announced that the entirety of Dota 2 would be ported over to the Source 2 game engine in an update called Dota 2 Reborn.[75] The beta was released to the public on June 17, 2015.[76] On September 9, 2015, Reborn was officially released out of beta... It's odd to say the exact days, when the rest of the article just says the month and the year, such as "However, after various updates and patches, over a million concurrent players were playing again in January 2016, with that being the largest amount of users since March 2015."

    • The move to a new engine/complete re-write of the game's code should be deemed more notable than a playerbase milestone. I guess they could be generalized, but I don't see why we have to do that to every single date. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess not, just reading the full dates as opposed to just the month and the year seemed a bit odd. If I'm the only reviewer to bring up this issue, then I'd say it's fine to just leave it as is.
  • Czar brought it up too, but I think the move to a completely new engine (and first game to use it) is notable enough to state the exact day it was released out of beta. I generalized the dates in the rest of the section though, as they aren't that important. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Professional competition *To ensure that enough Defense of the Ancients players would take up Dota 2 and to showcase the game's capabilities, Valve sponsored sixteen accomplished Defense of the Ancients teams to compete at The International, a Dota 2 specific eSports tournament, for a $1 million prize in 2011. The International was already mentioned as a Dota 2 eSports tournament in the previous section.

  • After the introduction of the Majors, the biggest annual Dota 2 tournament, The International, was then considered to be the cumulative "Summer Major", with the 2016 iteration being the first one under the new format. Once again, the International was already mentioned in the previous section
  • I'm sorry, but is the Documentary section really necessary? That section has no relevance to the rest of the article. Tons of documentaries are made about major events, so what makes the Dota 2 documentary so unique. Honestly, if you can't establish greater notability, I would like to see this section removed.
    • Not against moving it, but it could also be merged with the development section. The documentary apparently brought in a lot of new players who weren't interested/aware of it before, so it's not something 100% trivial either. Also about TI, I tried to mention what it was in case readers skipped another section of the article, but I'm not sure how WP:MOS handles this, so I just went with the safe way. Do we write entire articles assuming the reader will read every part of it? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the documentary was that important, then it's notability certainly wasn't expanded upon. All that section was was just discussing what the documentary was about, when it was announced, and when it was released. I'm not completely opposed to removing it, but I'd like to see an article mentioning it's importance in broadening the fan-base. As for your second point, I actually have no idea. I always thought you edited the article thinking everyone will read the entire thing, but now that you mention it, that's kind of stupid, especially for really long articles. I'll ask czar about that
  • True, I suppose I could try to find articles on that, and if they don't, maybe trim the section simply stating that a documentary was made and that it exists. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reception *Are the awards listed in the review box really necessary? There's already an entire section dedicated to the awards the game won.

    • Maybe not, but the template supports it, so it's not like they don't belong either. I'll remove them anyway, though, due to it looking cleaner. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, overall a very well researched article that definitely has the makings of featured status. Just some issues that need to be fixed before I can support. Also, would you mind returning the favor and reviewing the Virtue's Last Reward FAC? Famous Hobo (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is my first time ever nominating an article, so I've never been asked to do something like this. I personally prefer to just directly edit articles myself, but since you took the time to review this, I could try, sure. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Czar part 2 edit

The above section has gotten sloppy and hard to read, so I hope this is fine to do. Anyway, @Czar: how would you rate the gameplay section now? I tried to make the very first paragraph make more sense to somebody who has no idea what Dota 2/MOBA games are. I guess I should also ping @Axl:, @Nergaal:, @CurlyWi:, and @DarthBotto: to see if they have any suggestions. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that I am on personal leave right now for the next week, so my input has and will be severely limited. Unforeseen circumstances, so I apologize for being out of the game until then. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 17:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely better but there's a lot jammed into each sentence—need to give them room to breathe. For example, if the word "Ancient" is really needed instead of "base", the objective of the game should be linked to "defending the ancients". Several sentences running-on with comma + gerund constructions. It's fine to just state the concepts simply and to add the vocabulary later—that's the scaffolding. Also some verbosity, like isn't "while defending their own" implied? Are they all "human" players? Never any AI? Do you need to know about the 111 avatars while introducing the basic concepts of the game? "Every hero also has a basic, non-ability attack, which doesn't have a cooldown." Wouldn't it be better to explain all the attacks at once? E.g., Each hero has several attacks: an infrequent "ultimate", normal attacks, etc. (And then explain each, using the topic sentence as the scaffold.) Can't say much more for the near future but another copy editor can comment czar 09:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence 2: players control one of the 111 avatars, known as "heroes", with each having their own design, benefits, and trade-offs, existing in various character classes and roles, including "tanks" and "healers". Tank and Healer aren't really roles in dota. There are heroes with healing abilities, but just having one doesn't really make you a "healer." For example, one of the best healing spells in the game is on juggernaut who is a carry hero, so calling him a healer is kind of silly. Similar story with tanks. In fact, the source you cite for this sentence (the official website) doesn't even list healer and tank as roles on there. I would use support and carry as your two examples instead. CurlyWi (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True, guess that doesn't need to be stated (but these type of roles roles do exist in Dota, it's just more flexible than most other MOBAs/games). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that does seem better. However, the sole objective of the game is the destroy the other team's ancient, not any other part of the base (except for the two towers right near it that render the ancient invulnerable until they are destroyed), so I don't think we should generalize that. Also, a reader could assume the map only has one ancient, and that one team is the attacking side, while the other is the defending side. Honestly, trying to describe this game in generalized terms to a potential reader who's never heard/played a MOBA before is damn difficult. The entire size of this article could be written just about gameplay mechanics alone, and trying to decide the stuff to include versus the stuff to omit for it is the hardest part. Many longtime/professional players don't even fully understand every mechanic in the game, either due to its obscurity or the fact patches are fairly frequent that change them, but that's beside the point. @Czar: Outside of the gameplay edits, I've created a new "Legacy" sub-section, which uses some of those sources you provided above. However, I'm still not sure what to populate it with. Anything reception wise, belongs above, and anything professional/eSports wise belongs in that section too. There are a lot of Dota 2/eSports specific websites that have good info we could use, but are probably not considered WP:VG/RS enough for a potential FA article. There are probably tons of foreign language (mainly Russian and Chinese) articles that could be used, but those should be limited too. Also, if anybody feels the need to fix something, please do, as it's been mainly me for the past year working on the article, and I often have trouble starting off new sections.
@DarthBotto: that's fine, this FAC should still be up by then (it's been active and article has improved since then, so they shouldn't close this yet). Also, I forgot to ping @Famous Hobo: and @JimmyBlackwing: to see if they have any suggestions of their own. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm back, so I should be able to be on the ball with this FAN. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 19:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: Did some more work since then if you haven't noticed. A new legacy section exists, with stuff that didn't really fit in other sections now belonging there. And does the gameplay section still need more work?
  • Unfortunately I haven't had time to check this article recently. I should have a little more time this week. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Gameplay", paragraph 2: "All heroes have at least four of them, although certain ones have up to six or more." This should be either "up to six" or "more than six". If more than six, what is the maximum? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you consider Invoker to have more than six? Or would you consider a hero like Keeper of the Light (who technically has nine, but two of them simply stop his channeled abilities.) I attempted to keep all of this simple for the reader, as the exact details don't belong here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would say "upwards of four". I think that otherwise we will find ourselves with a weaseley sentence. Let's keep it simple DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 22:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have not played Dota 2; I know nothing about Invoker or Keeper of the Light. Darth, please go ahead and change the sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the statement. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Gameplay", paragraph 2: "Non-ability damage scales throughout the game, and is influenced by one of the hero's primary attribute: strength, intelligence, and agility." Apart from the syntax error here, does each hero have a single primary attribute, or more than one primary attribute? (It seems odd that a hero might have more than one primary attribute when there are only three in total.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Each hero has one primary attribute. Although they still benefit from the basic bonuses on each of the three attributes they increase, the only way to increase base right click damage is to increase their primary one. These are indicated in game, and are highlighted with a gold outline, as seen here. If you can find a better way to state that, go ahead. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have changed the statement. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Gameplay", paragraph 3: "Also present on the map are "neutral creeps"... Neutral creeps do not attack unless provoked, and will respawn over time if killed. The most powerful neutral creep is named "Roshan"." I am not sure that neutral targets are called "creeps", although the reference does mention "neutral creeps". (In League of Legends, neutrals are called "monsters".) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The game just calls them "neutrals", if that's what you mean. Despite that, the community and reliable sources (and the semi-official Wiki) all call them neutral creeps instead, so unless this really bothers you and needs to change, I'd just keep it how it is for now. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're happy with the reliability of the references so let's leave it as "neutral creeps". Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Development", paragraph 4: "The appearances of each side's heroes were adjusted to be more individualized, with fewer traits specific to either faction." The two parts of this sentence have a disconnect. The latter half seems to imply that some traits were made more generalized for both factions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this means that unlike in DotA, them being a "faction" doesn't matter anymore. I don't even think the second half needs to be said anyway. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I went to Wikidata to remove the series qualifier in the infobox, as the franchise is registered as "Dota", but thus far on Wikipedia, we've abstained from creating a series article, as there is only a mod and a stand-alone title. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 22:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • In "Gameplay", paragraph 2, is "non-ability damage" the same as "basic damage-dealing attack"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's just commonly called a "right click", but I tried to avoid that as it's not official and could be confusing to new readers. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the basic damage-dealing attack is mentioned at the start of the paragraph. By the way, League of Legends does have other ways to injure an enemy champion—items with effects such as blade of the ruined king's active & sunfire cape's passive, and summoner spells such as ignite & chilling smite. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Development", paragraph 4: "In addition to that, Valve also had all of the heroes' voice acting completely redone from Defense of the Ancients." This statement requires a reference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is in the game, where it credits people that did not work in Warcraft III. (I don't think the mod had custom voices, but I could be wrong). Shouldn't WP:COMMONSENSE also apply here? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The mod doesn't have custom voices, only voices of characters switched out and what-not, which is very standard for custom maps. I'd argue that, in the same vein of COMMONSENSE, it's not even necessary to include that sentence. Acknowledging voice actors is kosher, but saying that they're using fresh assets for their IP goes without saying... DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 21:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I removed it then. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Development", paragraph 4: "Notable voice actors for the English version include Nolan North, Dave Fennoy, Jon St. John, Ellen McLain, Fred Tatasciore, Merle Dandridge, Jen Taylor, and John Patrick Lowrie." The reference is currently commented out. Could an inline citation be applied, perhaps using the "cite video game" template? Alternatively, could a "Note" be applied? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment edit

I can see the nominators have done the right thing since the previous FAC was archived, putting the article through PR and seeking comments on its talk page, but with no support for promotion after more than a month I think we need to archive this nom, take care of any outstanding points, and then by all means make a fresh start here after the standard two-week break. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What?! There were absolutely no outstanding points! We didn't get it because the people giving input didn't vote? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 22:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't agree with this. 95% of the issues raised here were fixed, and I pinged various others to give their options and they failed to respond in time. I'm just going to renominate this as soon as it's eligible again. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I need to question the use of the word simulcasted, as it doesn't seem to be a valid derivation or past tense of simulcast.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Dota_2/archive2&oldid=1109753289"