Talk:Inferno (Counter-Strike)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Inferno (Counter-Strike)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 12:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this GAN as part of the ongoing GAN backlog drive. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Initial comments

• There is unlikely any copyright violation in the article. Earwig's Copyvio Detector has reported only 4.8% in similarity.
• There are no cleanup banners, such as those listed at WP:QF, in the article.
• The article is stable. There has not been any edit warring in the recent period.
• No previous GA reviews.

General comments

• Prose, spelling, and grammar checking.
  • No problems were found in the lede.
  • No problems were found in the rest of the article.
• Checking whether the article complies with MOS.
  • Add alt texts to images.
  • Add wikilinks to Counter-Strike 2 in the lede.
  • Add wikilinks to Dust II, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, Counter-Strike 2, and Gabriel "FalleN" Toledo in the body.
  • "March of 2023' → March 2023
  • The article complies with the MOS:LEDE, MOS:LAYOUT, MOS:WTW, and MOS:WAF guidelines. The article has no embedded lists, so I am skipping MOS:EMBED.
• Checking ref, verifiability, and whether there is original research.
  • References section with a {{reflist}} template is now present in the article.
  • No referencing issues.
  • Listed references are reliable, they are mostly news websites.
    • Ref 30 does not have access date and pages listed.
    • Design: "Due to Inferno's amount of paths, there are many locations where conflict can arise, though some experience more conflict than others, such as the maps choke points." is unsourced.
  • Spotchecked Ref 1, 2, 4, 9, 11, 16, 23, 29, 32–all verify the cited content. AGF on other citations.
  • Copyvio already checked.
• Checking whether the article is broad in its coverage.
  • Design: Alt. Middle is also known as Second Middle, so if there are any sources that describe this location as Second Middle, you should add it to the article. There are also two more easter eggs that you should add: the Counter-Strike 1.1 main menu in the Terrorist Apps and the Grenate Graffiti in Pit.
  • Besides this, the article looks good. Passes this criteria.
• Checking whether the article is presented from an NPOV standpoint.
  • The article meets the criteria and is written in encyclopedic language.
• Checking whether the article is stable.
  • As noted in the initial comments, there has not been any edit warring in the recent period.
• Checking images.
  • All looks good, images are properly licensed.

Final comments

@NegativeMP1: There are not too many issues you'll have to fix so I'll put the article on hold for a week. Cheers, --Vacant0 (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

All of these issues should be addressed, though two things I should mention:

1. I was unable to find a source that mentioned the Counter-Strike 1.1 menu Easter egg, so I didn't add it. A mention of the Graffiti Easter egg has been added, though.
2. Couldn't figure out how to add the access date and pages to the Cite thesis template, so I just typed them manually in the reference itself. Hopefully that works well enough.

NegativeMP1 (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

That's alright. The maps in the thesis were cited on page 4, so I've corrected that. Passing this article, good job. Vacant0 (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 11:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Counter-Strike map "Inferno" was a popular community map for Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare on PC? Source: https://www.kotaku.com.au/2021/07/10-best-fps-multiplayer-maps/
  • ALT1: ... that "Inferno" from the Counter-Strike series is considered one of the best multiplayer maps in video game history by Kotaku? Source: https://www.kotaku.com.au/2021/07/10-best-fps-multiplayer-maps/
  • ALT2: ... that the Counter-Strike map "Inferno" encourages the player to massacre chickens via awarding points? Source: https://www.pcgamer.com/csgo-chickens/
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by NegativeMP1 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Inferno (Counter-Strike); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• I will take on this DYK within the hour. Adog (Talk・Cont) 02:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - n
• Other problems: - I would take ALT 1 over ALT 0, since ALT 0 may only be appealing to a gaming audience or not be well understood by a wider audience. The attribution of ALT 1 is problematic because it is sourced from one review, a Kotaku article, and may not reflect a wider opinion of game reviewers/publications/individual perceptions. I like it, but if it is "one of the best multiplayer maps in video game history" there should be multiple reliable sources that state such. In the article, it does not state "best multiplayer maps in video game history" but lists other varying factors such as: "one of the best multiplayer maps ever made" or "Inferno has often been called one of the best maps in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive and among the best in the series" or "Throughout the lifespan of Global Offensive, Inferno has been considered one of the most important maps in the games competitive scene". It seems to be the best at multiple things here, which is confusing given the current hook's wording. A plausible hook could involve Kotaku. Maybe another hook idea?

QPQ: None required.

Overall: This article was a good read, first and foremost. I got to learn more about a map in the game CS:GO. I have never played the game, but I am well aware of it and its legacy. The article was recently promoted to GA on August 5, 2023, and it is long enough to support 8,800 bytes/characters. The article is supported by a list of reliable sources, neutral, and free from major copyright and plagiarism. According to our lovely friend Earwig, the article turns up mostly quotes and common phrases. There is one small paraphrasing issue, but it should be addressed with the above and below comments inadvertently. Hooks are in length, cited here, but there are some problems noted above and below. QPQ is not needed since this is a first-time nomination.

For my DYK reviews, I tend to add some comments the editor can implement to improve their article. I believe these suggestions should be implemented, as a reader might have questions on the article's content:

• In the lead, wikilinks for "casual" with Casual game and possibly "competitive play" with Gamer or Esports? Same with their first appearance in the body.
• Wikilink the first instance of choke points in the section "Design".
• Also, in the section "Design", the sentence: ... as they control very important locations and will almost certainly experience conflict. might read better as ... as they control important locations and will experience points of conflict.
• In the subsection "Global Offensive" in "History", the sentence: The map returned in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, now as a base game map, with minor graphical enhancements ... might read better as The map returned in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive as a base game map, with minor graphical enhancements ...
• In the "Reception" section, the sentence: Inferno has often been called one of the best maps in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive and among the best in the series. should clarify who says CS:GO's Inferno is the best: Inferno has often been called one of the best maps in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive by [gaming publications/reviewers/the public] and among the best in the series.
• In the "Reception" section, the sentence: As of 2023, Inferno remains one of the most popular maps in the games competitive scene, and it was used in the last Major Championship before the upcoming release of Counter-Strike 2. is out of place, given that later in the subsection "Competitive impact" it restates the first half of this sentence at the beginning and covers the rest of it in more detail. I would delete this sentence.
• Unfortunately, this sentence: Throughout the lifespan of Global Offensive, Inferno has been considered one of the most important maps in the games competitive scene. is a bit problematic given that it does not accurately provide a summary of the subsection's topics, as it attempts to define what the section does not/is not. The statement is particularly confusing since it seems to stretch into WP:OR, giving a general anecdote for a series of controversial changes/criticism/popularity stats of the subsection's topics but not addressing how the map was explicitly: "one of the most important maps in the games competitive scene".

• I think a plausible way to fix this would be to move sentences: "After the final Counter-Strike major in early 2023, it was revealed that Inferno was the most played map in the games majors, being played 263 times, with Mirage being played 243 times. The map was featured in all of the games majors except the Cologne 2016 and Atlanta 2017, which took place during the maps update period." possibly back up to the main "Reception" content, likely as the last sentences of the first paragraph. I would also reword it to better conform with the idea that it is "among the best in the series". I would delete the subsection and preface the remaining sentences with something about controversy or criticism that fit WP:DUE.

• In the subsection "Competitive impact", I assume "CT side" is "Counter-Terrorist side". If so, an abbreviation should appear somewhere in the article, likely during the first instance of the word.

I know this seems like a lot, but with some perseverance, I believe this article could pass if a new hook is cited and changes to the article's content are made that better reflect a newly accurate worded hook. There are some grammar/sentence structure stuff I can help fix later, but the above are crucial to implement. I do not want to outright say no to this DYK nomination since this is a first-time nom, and I believe in the editor's work! Adog (Talk・Cont) 05:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Adog Thanks for the feedback on the article itself, these were some things I honestly didn't take into account too much and hence didn't notice. I think most of it should be addressed now? Anyways, I specified Kotaku in the ALT1 and added an ALT2, which I think might be way more interesting as a hook. NegativeMP1 (talk) 05:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• @NegativeMP1: Awesome! I went through the article and did some touch ups for your attention. If something was changed that altered the sentence's meaning, feel free to revert it back. The article looks amazing! I like ALT 2 a lot. ALT 1 could be an alternative. I am going to ask for another reviewer just to double-check, but I feel this article looks good, has the hook, and is ready. Thank you for your patience and attention. Good luck! :) Adog (Talk・Cont) 13:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
  • ALT2 approved, but I'd suggest changing "via" to "by" when promoting, or even dropping the whole "via awarding points" part; how else does a video game encourage anything? RoySmith (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Quotation marks?

Should the title of this article (and other articles about video game maps) be in quotation marks? MOS:VG says: "Individual video game levels, chapters, or episodes of a standalone video game should use standard double quotes". To me this clearly includes video game maps in addition to levels, but this doesn't seem to be a consensus view (tagging @Alyo for comment!).

As for other similar articles, 2Fort, Tilted Towers, and Nuketown (Call of Duty) include quotes in the intro only (and sometimes in the relevant navbox). Blood Gulch does not include quotes for the main term, but does add them for other names.

Brad (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Heya @DividedFrame, would you mind starting this discussion over at WT:VG? I don't think enough people watch this page. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Or even Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video games. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Done, thanks! Brad (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)