Wikipedia:Peer review/Steam (software)/archive1

Steam (software)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because as not only one of the chief contributors and organizers for the Valve task force and a prominent contributor to the video game task force, I feel like the subject matter of this article requires enhanced quality. I recently called for this article to receive a B-Class rating and upon receiving it, I was encouraged by Vantine84 to look to improve it so that it could be ready for a GAN. Upon looking through the article, I do see room for improvement, but also recognize that the touch-ups required are not beyond comprehension. Therefore, I would like some thorough feedback of the kind that could help achieve this feat. DarthBotto_talk•cont 03:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. V's thoughts:

The article is very sectiony, and some of the sections are rather small (overlay, big picture mode, etc.). Can we condense some of the smaller sections? A more bold edit would be to have only three subsections of Client functionality: one for software delivery and maintenance, another for the user interface including the store, matchmaking etc., and another for other functions.
~~History should probably be the first section in the article, per other software GAs like OS X and Windows RT. This will give the reader some context right off the bat.~~
The software delivery and maintenance section is quite detailed, especially the first paragraph. Perhaps it is a bit too technical for the average reader, who has little interest in filename extensions and such. Keep that in mind for the whole article — your average reader is a tech/software layperson.
~~The steam translation server subsection could be moved up into client functionality and perhaps does not need to be a subsection.~~
Most or all of the history subsections could be removed and condensed into the larger History section. The profitability, November 2011 hack, and vulnerabilities subsections only have a few sentences each.
~~The infobox should have one picture. The store picture can be moved or removed.~~
References could use some cleanup. Some of them have not been accessed for a long time and should be checked for link rot. Others are in a raw form.
~~The prose is pretty good but if you want to take this guy all the way to FAC you'll want a copyedit; you can request one from the Guild.~~

The main issues are ease of reading, i.e. the section/formatting and overly detailed sections. Work on those and GAN should be fine. It has the potential for FAC and between this peer review, GAN, and possibly an A-class review and copyedit you should get the help you need. Keep up the good work! — Mr. V (t – c) 10:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from LT910001

Agree with what has been said, the quality of this article is very good, it is very readable. Needs references as stated. One additional thing is that the GA review will require images to not have any issues with copyright. There appears to be one or two flags on the images that may need addressing. I wish you well on your wiki-travels and look forward to this article's GA promotion. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
The script has spotted the following contractions: won't, can't, isn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

Checklinks found 1 dead links out of a total of 140 links on 23 November 2013 at 05:55.

-(t) Josve05a (c) 19:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, none of those suggestions are applicable to this article. DarthBotto_talk•cont 19:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]