Wikipedia:Peer review/Minecraft/archive1

Minecraft

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi, I was hoping someone could take a look at this article and give me a good starting point in trying to improve it to A- or FA-class. I don't know that it would necessarily need any expansion, but I'm sure it could use some refinements.

Thanks, Dea db eef 05:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

looks pretty good. I can see no issues of any kind myself. I'd put it up for FAC. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 23:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes from Teancum (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LEADCITE citations shouldn't be in the lead if the info exists in the body. WP:LEAD states that the lead should summarize the body (in other words, anything in the lead should also be in the body). Therefore there shouldn't be any cites in the lead.
Four non-free screenshots are unnecessary. The "city hall" screenshot does nothing to help the reader understand, and the "procedurally generated" screenshot doesn't either. I don't look at that and go "Yeah, I totally see how that's procedurally generated". That being said they'll have a very hard time passing WP:NFCC.
Cite #28 (Boing Boing) may be challenged at FAC. What makes this site reliable?

I've removed the screenshot with the procedural generation caption. The city hall picture needs to be kept because the whole point of Minecraft is to build. Therefore a picture of something built is important.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the screenshots exemplify what the game looks like, although the captions need work. cite 28 is form an interview with one of the game devs. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the lede, there were some sales statistics that weren't in the body of the text, which was why there were citations in the lede. I've now updated the statistics in the body, and removed the citations in the lede.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if you want Public Domain or CC images to replace the non-free images, I can certainly accommodate, by taking some screenshots, and put them on commons. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 01:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that's not allowed. A video game screenshot is still copyrighted by the developer.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hmm? i've never heard of that... but OK... not sure how everying on youtube makes money off gaming recordings then... -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 03:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: Wikipedia's copyright policies are much more strict than that of YouTube.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ah. although the monetization is somewhat stringent... but yeah, perhaps they are...— Preceding unsigned comment added by aunva6 (talk • contribs)

@Teancum: Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Boing Boing, the Boing Boing article is reliable.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]