Wikipedia:Peer review/RuneScape/archive5

RuneScape

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

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it needs a little guidance from a third party (other than 1ForTheMoney and myself) before it gets a GA Nomination (which I have removed per advice from Someone another).

Thanks, Unionhawk ^Talk 18:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TechOutsider edit

The lead looks sufficient, in terms of length. Avoid redundancy, as pointed out by the semi-automated review; don't use "RuneScape" over and over; try to brainstorm of alternatives, such as "the game", etc. I noticed in the lead "Gielinor" is not wikilinked. A short explanation should be provided. Also try to think of an alternative for categorizing the foes in RuneScape; "monsters" is not very encyclopedic. Refer to them as "challenges", maybe. Try to explain what "skills" are in the lead as well.

In the body, try to be concise and clear. For example, separate "The game, which was never publicly released, used isometric graphics." into two separate sentences; you are putting two unrelated points together, losing clarity. What is "event handling"? Explain or wikilink. Some vagueness, as mentioned by the semi-automated review; "many locations" for example. Be more specific about the geographical regions. More examples of vagueness; "visible graphical boost"; "expanded and improved". Also some capitalization errors in the body.

I'll be looking at the article some more later. Best of luck. Don't forget to read and follow the suggestions given by the semi-automated review. As for GA-class, this article is not quite; however almost. TechOutsider (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replies from 1ForTheMoney: All very good comments. Here are my thoughts:

Gielinor isn't wikilinked because it's a redirect to RuneScape - go ahead, click on it. It's already noted in the lead that it's a fantasy-themed realm, but it can be explicitly noted as the game world as well.
I can perceive two options for defining skills in RuneScape: a brief explanation in the lead, or a link to the appropriate section of the page (nothing I've read says it shouldn't be done). I'm guessing the first option would be better, though.
Event handling is now linked, though it wasn't an enlightening read.
The Graphics and sound section quite possibly needs a rewrite in places, and I'm suprised it isn't specifically noted. I've placed this on the article's to-do list, which will have to suffice for now. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 08:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lead

Some more issues with the lead. Let's focus on that for today; editing leads is very diffucult and it took me several months of tweaking one article's lead to obtain GA-class. Ok, first paragraph, lead. ~~You~~ (your obviously not the only editor), mention it is a MMORPG. Then a random fact from the Guisness World Records, then again talk about the technical aspects of the game; citing it is a browser game with 3D rendering capibilities. You need to organize the first paragraph for a more even flow; if you want to talk about the technical aspects of the game, talk about it, don't jump around. Some vaguness, "large degree". Be more specfic, as mentioned before.

The second paragraph of the lead is comprised of two sentences. Devle a little deeper into the motivations of why Andrew Gower scrapped DeviousMUD. Then go on to talk about the developments and future developments, as highlighted briefly in the article.

As for the third paragraph, it doesn't flow quite right. Wikilink "magical". Explain the point, or goal of each player when playing RuneScape. What's the point, ask yourself? I like organizing articles by using cause and effect; it makes for a logical flow and organization; since most everything that happens is out of reason and logic. Building on that point, explain what are memberships and why players may purchase them. Explain the objectives, and challenges in the game.

There are other problems in the body, after another quick skim, however let us tweak the lead. Keep me posted. Best of wishes. TechOutsider (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More thoughts: Ah, a systematic approach. I took those points into consideration and wrote something up. Here's the rundown:

In the first paragraph, the second and third sentences are rearranged. Instead of noting the world record, and then that it's a browser-based game, it's the other way round. As for "large degree", since there's no specific percentage or figure, I've just eliminated that entirely.
The second paragraph...yes, I already thought of that. The relevant information is included from the next section. As for why Andrew did it...I'm afraid I don't know. The sources reveal nothing significant that isn't covered by the article.
Speaking purely from personal opinion, RuneScape does not have one specific goal so it's not entirely appropriate to try and list one. I've shifted a couple of sentences around so that points hopefully flow a little more easily. For the moment, I'm not doing anything major to that paragraph, just to see if this new lead will take. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Excellent work. Better than I ever imagine. I'm going to move on to the body; even if the article does fail the GA nomination, at least you'll get more suggestions I can ever offer. TechOutsider (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Body, History and development

The first paragraph mentions DeviousMUD being withdrawn shortly after its release. Is there a reason as to why so? As stated before, it helps the flow and organization. In the second paragraph, you mention Gower was a Cambridge University undergraduate. I believe that fact should be removed. In the third paragraph, you mention RS's popularity. Can you be more specfic; number of players, or some kind of numerical data? In the fifth paragraph, use "RAM" (wikilinked) in place of "Memory". The sixth paragraph is a stub and needs to be either removed or merged. In the last paragraph, you mention Jagex as a "a secretive and closed-off company". Can you provide examples?

Now, looking at the History and development section as a whole, I think membership information is somewhat irrelavent. It should be in a seperate section, or heading. I don't know, however I'm sure you will be able to figure out a more logical flow and organization; you've already impressed me twice! TechOutsider (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your confidence is heartening. It wouldn't be fair to see this article's GA chances get shot down over one loose section. I only hope User:Unionhawk comments as well; I've never really done editing of this sort before. Now, on to the relevant points:

Again, as with the lead, there's no source giving a reason why DeviousMUD was withdrawn. This is probably the only reason why the information isn't included. Sadly, I'm a better writer than a reference-digger.
Yes, that fact about Gower has nothing to do with RuneScape. It's been removed.
You're probably referring to the first sentence of the third paragraph. I wonder if that sentence is even needed there (it's not really part of the game's history, nor of its development). I'm tenatively removing that as well.
The given source used the word "memory" rather than "RAM". I'll just use a piped link for now, unless there's a pressing reason not to.
- Also, the information about rising costs collides with guidelines provided by Wikiproject Videogames. True, it's a piece of history, but I'm removing it for now. It's always easy to replace if need be.
I'm not going to fiddle with the sixth paragraph until I've had some time to study it. It could be as simple as combining two paragraphs (say, this and the last paragraph, since they're both about people in high-level positions announcing changes to the game). Then again, it might not be.
The phrase you bring up from the last paragraph is a quote from a given source. To make sure everyone knows where it came from, I've moved the reference further down the paragraph.
Information on membership...hmmmm, splitting that into its own subsection is a valid idea, but there's a balance to strike. Too much information is game-guidey, and too little will just see the information merged again because the section is a stub. I'd trust User:Unionhawk to do it, though (and then I trust myself to rewrite it without any mercy whatsoever). Still, I'll take some time to consider salient points. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am here! How did I miss that much, exactly? Anyway, let's see here...

I wasn't even aware that DeviousMUD was ever released. The fact that the source is on a tripod hosted site as opposed to Jagex's official site is suspicious at best...
Yeah, that fact should be in Gower's bio, not the RuneScape article.
I think we have or at least had a player count somewhere. Maybe that should also be included in this section.
Memory and RAM are really the same things... does it really matter that much?
The sixth paragraph is short because, frankly, he hasn't done much differently yet.
The only information on membership that it gives you access to more areas, skills, minigames, quests, ect, and has always been $5 until they changed it recently. That's about it. Not really worthy of a section alone.--Unionhawk ^Talk 02:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Body, Gameplay

Vaugeness in first paragraph; "skills needed to succeed in RuneScape". You mentioned eariler there is no single main objective in RuneScape; thus the word "succeed" would be a little to broad. As for the last two sentences of the first paragraph, I have absolutely no clue of what it is referring to. Are you talking about the tutors, or the secluded area all players begin at?

How about "the most basic skills"?
I honestly don't know what you're referring to... Those last two sentences are pretty straightforward to me...--Unionhawk ^Talk 03:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second sentence included for context:

“

These non-player characters, or NPCs, can replace basic equipment items if necessary and can give players appropriate information about their respective skills. When the tutorial was initially introduced on 24 September 2002, it was set on a secluded island.[36] On 14 July 2008, a new tutorial was briefly introduced, set in the town of Lumbridge.[37] However, due to technical difficulties with the new one, the original tutorial was reinstated.[28]

”

"The tutorial". Are you talking about the tutors as mentioned in the first quoted sentence, or the secluded area. It sounds like you are talking about the secluded area where all new players begin, because you mention the tutorial was set on a secluded island. However, that would be redundant. So, it leaves me somewhat confused.

As for replacing "succeed", your revision would be fine. TechOutsider (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... The tutorial was (and I guess still is) a series of NPC's teaching you the basics on "Tutorial Island". So, I guess it's referring to both the Tutors, and the island; the Tutorial as a whole. You may be confused by the new tutors that have been put in Lumbridge for either more in-depth help, or in case a newbie forgets what to do. I still think that it's pretty straightforward, but, if you think it's confusing, feel free to make it clearer.--Unionhawk ^Talk 16:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misc.

Ok, going right along, the picture on the left under the History and development section is out of place. It concerns ranged combat, something not discussed until later in the article. Maybe you want to highlight another aspect of the picture.

Combat

"Combat is an important aspect of the game, allowing players to retrieve items or gold dropped by dead creatures."

I believe players can take cash and items dropped by dead players. The section is also somewhat redundant in its use of "combat". You also mention a formula; is there any way you can track down the specific formula? As for the following sentence; it seems irrelevant to the section and sounds like a game guide, rather than an encyclopedic article.

"Players engage in combat by clicking on the enemy they wish to attack."

Good work. More to come. I'll leave it to you to correct those issues at your discretion. However, I would love being partially credited if RuneScape reaches GA-class :). TechOutsider (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this does reach GA, you and Unionhawk can expect some barnstars from me (hold me to it!) Now, on with the show:

The image is from RS-Classic. Since this is no longer open to new accounts, and I joined a long time after it was closed, replacing it would be near-impossible as there are few people who still play. As for moving it...well, I think it's there because then it's placed next to information on RS-Classic. But I fiddled a bit, and found the text flowed better when it was moved down a little. So I've done that, for no other reason.
You guessed right. I've changed that sentence to include players.
Jagex have never officially released the formula (I added the word "mathematical" some time ago to distinguish it from other formulas). I can show you the formula, but it's on a forum and I don't believe those are reliable sources.
I'd rather not give the impression that the player character just randomly decides to attack things, so for now, I'm leaving that sentence there, and clarifying that it's the character who does the attacking, not the player themselves. I'll probably have some inspiration later, though.
I've also taken the step of moving a couple of sentences around. One paragraph started by talking about characters dying, then about boosting combat abilities, then about dying again. That has now been rectified. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts:

Either way, how hard is it to pull a RuneScape Classic screenshot off of a fansite, or Flikr?
I imagine Jagex doesn't want their formula floating around for all the world to copy... I could be wrong, but...--Unionhawk ^Talk 16:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PvP worlds

Be as clear and concise as possible; "Jagex announced their intention to introduce". I would drop "their intention" and then polish it some more. The second sentence is also a little wordy; avoid using Jagex too many times. As a whole, the paragraph is a little confusing; you state in October "this" update went live. Specifically which of the two updates? I would presume both of those updates went live, however the current structure leaves readers dangling.

The second paragraph is a little roundabout and wordy as well. I'll be editing it, and you can see if it satisfies you and if it is factually accurate. Not sure if I made any significant improvements though.

Quests

The first three sentences all start with the word "Quest". Some organization problems; "Intermediate quests challenge players on a basic level, while experienced and master quests challenge the more experienced players and often open up new areas of Gielinor.[51]" Wouldn't the section in italics be stated in the second paragraph of the section, as a reward?

Some more organizational problems; "Once a player completes all quests in the game, another achievement cape, commonly referred to as the "quest cape", can be purchased from an NPC.[38] Many quests require players to kill particularly powerful monsters. Generally, a new quest is released each month." I believe the section in italics should be placed earlier in the paragraph, when it talks about what quests are and what players have to do in quests. Vagueness: "massive conspiracy"; and conspiracy is broad enough to be wikilinked.

Interaction

"However, most NPCs can be attacked and these are generally referred to as monsters, regardless of their race." I'm not sure if race has anything to do with their classification of monsters, unless ~~you~~ the article is talking about the human race and etc.

These paragraphs (and the ones that follow) will require more work, so don't expect it to be done in an instant. But for now:

The section on PvP worlds could be less wordy. I've made an edit to that effect, taking your suggestions into account.
That section on quests could be better, I admit, so I'm going to bullet the changes I've made:
- I've tried to break up uses of the word "quest". ~~The part on quest difficulties used the word "challenge" a little too often, so I replaced one occurence with "geared towards" (though I really want something better).~~ Scratch that, it's been removed. Probably for the best, since it wasn't accurate anyway.
- The first italicised phrase was actually redundant, and has been removed.
- "Quest cape" has been changed to "quest point cape", to line up with the source. I did think of removing the commas just before and after it, but that didn't flow so well.
- The second italicised phrase has been moved further up the paragraph, and joined into another sentence (eliminating another use of the word "Quest").
- "Massive conspiracy" is now just a "conspiracy" and has been linked. (Sorry, conspiracy theorists, this is not an elaborate cover-up!)
- On a side note, I've never been convinced that the given image is serving a purpose. Given the number of quests in RS (over 150), 1 image doesn't really convey that side of it properly. Thoughts?
"Race" probably isn't the best word to use. I've changed it to "species", pending something better. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replies from TechOutsider

Great. As for the picture, maybe the caption can be something along the lines of "this quest is one of over 150 quests RuneScape offers."

Good idea. From personal experience, I think it was referring to the wrong quest anyway. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random events

I never heard of the term "autoers" before. The reference provided for the sentence, number 57, also does not mention "autoers". Macros and bots should do. Some fact verification; are you sure all random events teleport a player to another location? Don't some NPCs may appear as part of a random event, and attack a player? However, that would be WP:OR. See if you can find some more reliable and comprehensive sources on random events.

Economy

Nothing major; a little cleanup. Maybe it could be expanded a little more, in various directions, however it should not sound like a guide.

Chat system

"RuneScape's chat system enables players to interact with each other more freely and directly." The information is vauge and unsourced. The first paragraph also could be reorganized; first talk about public chat, then the special forms of communication.

Second paragraph; "If a player uses symbols or other means to bypass the chat filter, they can be reported by any player for breaking a rule." There are specfic rules; which rule? Maybe some added detail may help this article. And the information shouldn't be too hard to dig up.

More later TechOutsider (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replies from Unionhawk

All random events in which players are attacked by an NPC have been removed from the game in the recent update.
I agree. The first paragraph of the Chat System section should be reorganized
"breaking a rule" => "using offensive language"--Unionhawk ^Talk 19:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from 1ForTheMoney Too many darn edit conflicts...

Unionhawk is correct about random events, so I have no more to say there.
The Economy and Chat system subsections were, essentially, each written by a single person. The first section was recently cut back to remove in-universe material. As for the second section, ~~I'm thinking of combining the second and third paragraphs, since the latter is kind of short.~~ I've chosen to do that, rewriting the third paragraph in order to fit. Whether it'll take is another matter.
As an afterthought, that image we've been talking about has a weak FUR compared to other images in the article. I would do it myself, but I have little experience with images. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replies from TechOutsider

I'll leave it to you as to correcting the issues identified above. I will look at the article as a whole later once all the issues have been addressed. Good work. What a duo.

Graphics and sound

Some minor cleanup so the section is as clear and concise as possible.

Community

~~A set of official forums? I believe that can be better stated; do forums comes in sets?~~

"On 9 April 2009, the privilege of posting on the forums was extended to free players with a high number of experience points." Exactly how many points? Is there a set number? Some more vagueness; "Beginning 24 September 2002, players could submit questions to the RuneScape gods; the last edition of these letters was published on 9 December 2004." What letters is the article referring to; I don't think the article mentioned letters up to the above sentence.

Some unreferenced information; could quite possibly be challenged by a user; "Jagex has promised to rebuild its ties with fansites. This has been greeted with a "wait and see” attitude from the communities."

Finally, the last paragraph, or sentence, of the Community section should be merged; it is notable information.

Reception

Reception section is fine. Provided you corrected the issues presented by the semi-automated review and most of the issues brought up here, this article is ready for GA-class. Not quite FA-class; the sections can be expanded further. I'd say take a little bit of time to look at the presented issues, review the article, and apply for GA. Best of luck.

~~As for referencing, I've looked at it; at least there are no formatting problems.~~ I'm sure the GA-reviewer will take a closer look. I used to play RuneScape, and it was really ate up my time, mostly the reason for some undesirable grades. I've since quit for quite some time, however this article caught my eye on the peer review list. Thought I might be able to catch up on the goings of RuneScape after my retirement :).

P.S. About the referencing; taking a look I found most of the sources are from the RuneScape knowledge base. While there is nothing wrong with that, depending on primary sources (sources published by Jagex) may subtract from the article. Third-party sources should always be used over primary sources. Think Google Scholar, rather than Google Web Search. TechOutsider (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replies from 1ForTheMoney: Progress marches on, I guess...~~I'll come back to this later when I have more time~~ Now that I have some more time:

I'm not going to correct the Graphics & sound section yet, since I want Unionhawk to have a look as well. Any work that takes place is likely to centre on the first two paragraphs ~~(they are a little dated)~~. Well, they're not dated as such, but they do want rewriting to fit the rest of the section.
Forums do indeed come in sub-categories (contact Jagex, general discussion, feedback, etc.) And as you probably indicate by striking your comment, they are detailed in the article.
Free-players do require a set number of XPs: 12.5 million, to be exact. I'll put it in, though it doesn't entirely seem worth the mention.
The sentence about letters should be "questions in the format of letters". That's been changed.
The unreferenced information could be construed as OR, especially since we've only got one fansite's take on the situation. That's been removed, and the reference now covers the entire sentence.
That last paragraph of the Community section was moved up from the Reception section. Partly to balance positive/negative comments, I've moved it back.
I often wonder if we could use more secondary sources, such as fansites or reviews. A second opinion is needed, I think. But I went through a couple of months ago and converted all but one reference into {{cite web}} format, preserving the relevant information. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replies from Unionhawk

Yeah, the Graphics and sound section needs to be made clearer. I'll do that when I have more time.
Unreferenced info is probably going to be OR... pretty much throughout the article.
Yeah, more third-party sources are needed, and current sources need to be formatted. I'll look over all of the references later (as you can see, I tried this earlier, but, being rushed, the results were not good, so I have since reverted the changes I made to references.)
I'll start using Google Scholar for research (thanks for the tip!)--Unionhawk ^Talk 17:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More replies from 1ForTheMoney

I see Unionhawk is going through all the references and clarifying where they come from. I tried to do that myself earlier, but their self-revert caused an edit conflict and screwed it up. You really can't rush that stuff.
Yes, the article will need more third-party sources. Primary sources are all well and good on a factual basis, but there is stuff in the article that could be updated or just verified. But as I said, I'm not much of a reference-digger. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replies from TechOutsider

One question for 1ForTheMoney; letters as in e-mail? Unionhawk, no problem for the tip. One peer reviewer, specifically suggested Google Scholar to me. Pass it on; share the knowledge :). Cheers. TechOutsider (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct; the questions were sent by e-mail, and published in the form of letters. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~May want to clarify in the article.~~ TechOutsider (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lead

Looking at the lead, I believe development information should be placed after the game's information. Development is less significant, nevertheless important, than what the current game is. Looking forward to comments from both of you. TechOutsider (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I've done it and it works very well. Now, if we can just find a potential replacement for that Tripod source...1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask around at WP:RS/N to see if it is infact a reliable source. To me, it probably is not, it sounds like an individual's blog hosted at the domain Tripod.com. TechOutsider (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish; I always tried to keep out of process, and stick to article editing. For what it's worth, that screenshot of DeviousMUD comes from that site. I wonder if anyone can suggest a potential replacement; ~~if not, I'll check the third-party sources again.~~ Well, that idea drew a blank. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much the only screenshot available (and it is used in many websites, but they all cite that tripod site), and it's not like there are any Primary sources on DeviousMUD anymore...--Unionhawk ^Talk 21:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Finding sources is a pain sometimes. Let's apply for GA-class, how bout' it? TechOutsider (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, you've sold me. I'm going to be away from the computer for some hours, but if a nomination is put forward, I don't see it automatically failing, other than that {{verify credibility}} tag. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before any nomination: I've just bulked out the fair-use rationales for the images in the Combat and Quests sections (I don't know how to simply link to them), copying in more detailed rationales from older images. I need somebody who knows this stuff to check the size of the images, and note if they are not "low-resolution". It would be possible to reduce the horizontal length of the second image slightly. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be looking at the images; and will be adding a more detailed fair use rationale. I will not scale the images; I have had no luck with photo editing applications and the size is sufficient, without being too high resolution. TechOutsider (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]