Talk:Dust II

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Zzzoom in topic GA Review
Good articleDust II has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 22, 2018Good article nomineeListed
September 15, 2018Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dust II/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Slightlymad (talk · contribs) 12:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Will be doing this.

I haven't got to the prose and verifiability yet, so I'll get back to you on those. Patience, Slightlymad 12:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Not sure if the following claims are sourced in the article, but for the sake of maintaining text-source integrity please support them each with citations:

  • "Middle" has there are three main areas; Catwalk is an elevated pathway that leads to Short on A site; Lower Tunnels is a tunnel leading from Middle to Upper Tunnels; and Middle Doors (Mid-Doors) has a set of open double doors at Middle, which leads to the Counter-Terrorist's spawn.
    • All of the positions are cited at the end of the paragraph. Wouldn't work if I put in the same citation for every single area, since the two citations at the end cover everything. If I need to change this, let me know. Zoom (talk page) 15:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • At Long A, there are another three important areas before approaching the A Site. Long Doors are the two sets of open double doors that lead from the Terrorist's spawn to Long A; Pit is a sloped area where players can hide or use for cover near Long Doors; and Counter-Terrorist spawn, located right of Long A from A Site, is where the Counter-Terrorists spawn. "B Tunnels" has two main areas; Upper Tunnels and Lower Tunnels.
  • In all Counter-Strike games, Dust II has been a popular map since its initial release and as of the 2017 updates continues to receive positive reception from mapmakers and players.
  • In February 2017, the map was removed from the Active Duty Competitive Pool in Global Offensive, a group of maps played in professional competitions. The map was removed in favor of a revamped version of a map titled Inferno.

Patience, Slightlymad 15:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • I think the Design section could be expanded, as it lacks a summary of the creator's design process. You should summarize Johnston's design process documented in his blog (at Fn. 5) in a new paragraph, and maybe signpost it with a topic statement using your own paraphrased version of this text by Johnston, "First things first, I had to ensure that this new map had everything in common with Dust, without actually being Dust. I had to identify the elements that defined a Dust map."
    • Done, let me know if there's anything I should change! Zoom (talk page) 14:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
      • This paragraph is half-baked, and I'm seeing a couple of issues with it (see below). Please take time to review the source properly so that this paragraph will yield better results.
        • ...he needed to ensure that this map had much in common with Dust, but not the point of it becoming Dust. → Looks close paraphrased to me; it's almost the same wording from the source.
        • He began identifying what made Dust, Dust. → This is confusing.
        • He set certain rules for himself with it, to make sure he didn't overuse under-use the feature. → Huh?
        • Per MOS:N'T, use of contractions should be avoided in encylopedic writing.
  • Mitch Bowman of PC Gamer praised the 2017 update, stating the change produced visual clarity. Probably best if we just quote this text directly instead, It’s a healthy overhaul that makes some modest but interesting changes without reinventing the wheel.
  • Another inline citation issue: many sources are missing publication dates, please add. Patience, Slightlymad 04:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Alright, I have no more issues with the article. I did a little copyediting of the prose which should be clean by now, and a spot-check of the cited sources, all of which are reliable and reflect the content accurately. Well done,   Pass