# Talk:The International 2016

Once the tournament is finished, would it be possible to potentially request a GA review and DYK? Maybe for DYK, it would be "Did you know that on August 13, team x won $x for winning The International 2016?" Pinging creator and major editor @Kabahaly and Dissident93:. Dat GuyTalkContribs 12:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@DatGuy: I don't see why not, but I have to wonder if better (custom) bracketing exists, as the current one being used isn't as clear as the one used on Liquidpedia or the official website. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Dissident93 Is it ready? Apologies for not editing/improving the article, as I was on vacation. Also, should there be a section for the all-star game? Dat GuyTalkContribs 20:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
@DatGuy: I was going to add a legacy section first (perhaps you have a better name?) that gives detail on the short film content, the cosplay competition, the two new hero announcements, and anything else. Perhaps after that it could? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Shown below, the tournament is finished yet front page first article in current news
reason: deleted, fails NPOV and verifiability. Political propaganda fails to meet NPOV (reasonable duty as public servant versus irrelevant politician publicity in a controversial landscape, verifiability fails impartiality, irrelevant encylopedic value
DatGuy (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,079 bytes) (+501)‎ . . (It follows WP:NPOV. All your reasons are invalid? Discuss on talk pge
according to the philippine constitution and filipino laws in place, all citizens are equal before the law. In this specific instance, considering the article is on front page and recurred on wikipoedia news, highlighting a specific politician having a personal hand in matters of public law fails to meet neutraility in the sense of quoting media swayed by overall political events and happenings. How would you say specifically this is encyclopedic in terms of gaming, the overall promotion of esports and the gamng industry versus the immigration and emigration policies. The action in granting visas for players to participate in life changing money considering the average national income, combined with high percentage of youth in the population playing the game as national sport is surely news worthy on a national but not for wikipedia. My point stands and even though I'm not registered and hopefully not biased with regard to any affiliation or personal opinion, highlighting the override of one politician over the laws of one country whether for good reason or for worse, then this should be jurisprudence for all citizens that don' t have the same opportunity. In the event the opportunity is deemed justifiable, then naming one politician with no relevance the encyclopedic subject of DOTA and cybergames, in other words naming a politician with esports is compelling by virtue of randomness relative to the culture of the nation which is agreeable, yet as a moderator if you cannot fail to see that the article in itself is not only not encyclopedic and not neutral by virtue of the profession, highlight as an elected official versus public policy in vigour, then you fail as a moderator because this is a neutral opinion and standpoint. I'll ask for a second opinion from another moderator and stand aside from the matter. Please revert your correction because my edit stands valid. You should be ashamed of yourself in pertinence  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.209.1.107 (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC) 

Huh? This is a gaming event. This has nothing to do with political propaganda. I'm using the {{helpme}} template to see if anyone can give a second opinion (or just understand what you're saying). Dat GuyTalk
exactly, it's a gaming event that's why when you name a senator who is a relative from the former president and with news such as SAF 44 occurred because of a $5m bounty and the ongoing dispute of hacienda luisita, not even mentioning the opening of Okada Manila casino (in light with the rcbc money laundering, drug war, war on oligarchs to mention a few current events) then attaching a name which is irrelevant to gaming and to a large audience is not encyclopedic, this comment is in response to yours and not to the edit as whole. I hope you understand inference, things are not always as they seem, implicit meanings and double sense words or perhaps it's too complicated for you to see why you're correcting my edit, hence a second opinion please.
perhaps to meet in the middle, the team managed to secure visas for the event. Even the source of the fact names and brands - if you understand marketing and elections - does not name this as a success of the philippine administration but the exceptional action of one senator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.209.1.107 (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2016‎
Contribs 12:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi IP, thank you for your interest and for civilly starting this discussion. I have marked the above template as 'helped', but this does not prevent other editors from giving their opinions. I've had a look at the disputed content, and the given reference passes WP:RS. The wording of the section, in my opinion, does not violate WP:NPOV as it merely states there was difficultly gaining a visa. --  samtar
all fair, consider this point last:
the national source when all sources are international or relevant to the gaming scene
ironic for "The International", reputable source? you're just a joke to yourself on front page. My point went across, thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.209.81.131 (talk • contribs) 
I have difficulty understanding Samtar's speech patterns, but to be clear, is the accuracy of the following line being contested? "Two teams from the Philippines, TnC Gaming and Execration, had issues securing travel visas to the United States, but were eventually able to get them one week before the event due to assistance from Filipino senator Bam Aquino." - I have not actually heard of the source before, The Philippine Star, but it seems to be an established newspaper. I quickly Googled, and the same content seems to be confirmed by other websites . It doesn't seem like there is any issue? ~Mable (chat) 15:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
@Maplestrip: to clarify, I only responded to the original comment, 112.209.1.107/112.209.81.131 is the editor who is contesting the content --  samtar talk or stalk 15:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I was confused by how the first four lines of this section were laid out. Sorry for saying useless things ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 16:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I am interested in doing a GA review of this article, but kinda can't, because I see no way of efficiently checking (or even comprehending) the content in the sections "Team", "Brackets", and "Main event". This kinda of content is simply out of my league. I can, however, have a look at the Background and Legacy sections. I have experience with writing prose for esports tournaments (like Evo 2016), so I should be able to at least check those parts. I hope this helps easing out the proper review. For the record, all I've added to this article was images (both public domain), so I consider myself a third party ^_^;

 Done Right away, I wonder what exactly this "compendium" is. What kind of content does the "Battle Pass" contain? How much money was made by it?
The "compendium" is pretty hard to explain for somebody who doesn't play Dota. The basic gist is that it's a US$9.99 DLC that resembles something like Kickstarter, with stretch goals based on how much money is raised by it. It also unlocks special in-game "skins" and other cosmetic bonuses that non-compendium owners can't buy until the tournament ends, but it's 100% optional, with 25% of the revenue made from it going directly in the prizepool, with Valve taking the other 75% for actually producing the event (renting out the venue, broadcasting production equipment and contracted workers, etc.) The "battle pass" is just the special name for this year's compendium, so they aren't really separate things. In terms of what to fix here, I propose to simply state that a crowdfunding system was released prior to the event. The main Dota 2 article explains this stuff better, so I didn't feel the need to dump the same info here too.
I do see a good explanation in the DotA 2 article, though I didn't know to look there, so a general reader wouldn't know either. I agree that the technicalities shouldn't be put into text, though. I would still like to see a bit more detail here, rather than less. First and foremost, I think it's worth mentioning that the other 75% goes to producing the event. Because it was unclear where the majority of the money was going, it was hard for me to imagine it as a real crowdfunding system.
That's my bad then, as I just assumed readers would know that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Were there other manners in which the prize pool was funded, like sponsorship deals? Did Valve donate any money?
The event is guaranteed to happen every year, as the base prize pool starts at $1.6 million, which Valve directly puts on the table (1.6 was was the prize pool of the first TI in 2011, so they do it symbolically I assume). Everything after that is crowdfunded from the aforementioned compendium/battlepass, which raised under 80 million this year. In terms of sponsorships and outside help, Valve fully funded, hosted, and organized the event.
With Valve only donating such a small amount of money (comparatively, of course!), I understand why it wouldn't be mentioned. Valve hosting the event otherwise is clear from the article :)
 Done "with the winner of them also earning an invite." <Shouldn't  'them' be replaced with 'those'?
It should.
 Done I'm curious when this roster swapping occurred.
The exact dates or just in general? I could add that to the prose, but I wasn't sure if anybody really cared, as long as they knew it happened before June, when the open qualifiers for the event started.
It's unclear of whether this happened just before the tournament, at some other point during the season, or shortly after TI 2015. A specific date isn't needed.
It happened right after the Manila Major in June, so I'll add that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
In general, I wonder if more information can be written about the qualifying events for the main tournament. For the Capcom Cup, for example, I give a separate section for the whole qualifying tour in which I describe the events of it. Then, in a separate section, I can describe the background of the main tournament, like its prize pool and venue. I don't know if such a massive change in the current layout of the article is at all needed, though, as I do like the amount of weight there is currently laid on the qualifying events. I may have an issue with wanting to describe everything in detail...
There really isn't much to be written about it, as the only notable thing that happened (in the open qualifier stage) was that EG and Secret took part due to them breaking a Valve rule, which ended up not getting a direct invite, as they would have otherwise. Around 1024 teams took part in it, and out of that, only those two were notable. The bracket and results can be found here, but I felt listing all of this info was outside the scope of notability for Wikipedia. It's also way harder to summarize if you compare it to the Capcom Cup too, because the majority of Dota 2 games last between 30-50 minutes, and the tournament used a best of three format for the main event, meaning that a normal series between two teams could last up to 90-150 minutes or more. The game of Dota itself is also difficult to explain to somebody without them having basic knowledge of it already, which isn't the case with fighting games (which is easily understandable to fans of boxing or MMA, for example).
Yes, I understand what you mean. If anything, anything that is left out shouldn't be major enough to go against GA guidelines.
 Done However, in general, I would say that the main venue should also be described in the background-section of a tournament. It seems weird to leave that for the legacy section.
I think it was until I moved it, hm.
The description of format seems to be very well done. It's rather technical, but that's fine.
If you can find a better way to write it, go ahead.
The legacy section is gorgeous. The sources used are strong and the prose gives a strong impression of how big an event it was without breaching WP:NPOV. Nice job! I... I have no idea what to criticize here, honestly.
Agreed. It's probably the section most casual fans (who hear about this massive event) will want to read first, after skimming over the bracket and such.
I think that currently, the biggest issue is in the background section, which describes a lot of events, but none of them in much detail. The "Battle Pass" in particular is never explained, and because of it, it is hard to understand how the event got funded. Otherwise, the lead section, infobox, and categories look good. All of the used sources are reliable and of appropriate quality, and cover the content that they are supposed to. I want to repeat, however, I have absolutely no idea about the quality of the brackets, or even if all the teams that are listed actually competed. I hope someone else could clear that all up. ~Mable (chat) 10:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The event had a lot of day by day coverage by sources such as ESPN, who summarized the games played, so sources do exist for fleshing out this stuff. And all the teams that are listed did compete in the tournament, however, the two teams that finished 3rd and 4th in the wild card qualifiers were eliminated a day before the main event. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Responded in turn to your responses. ~Mable (chat) 20:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
One thing I might (probably should) do is to remove the flags from the brackets, as it's considered WP:FLAGCRUFT and looks distracting. However, I think they should at least stay for the "team" section, as they are broken up into regions there. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Changes look good. I think from a prose perspective, it should be qualifying for GA now. You're probably right about the flags in the brackets, though I too like the flags in the Teams section. ~Mable (chat) 05:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The International 2016/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 15:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR  15:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguations: No links found.
Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.


### Checking against the GA criteria
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
"The tournament initially began with the Americas, China, Europe, and Southeast Asia" - I don't see any reason for the continents to be linked
"All matches consisted of two games against the same opponent in a 'round robin format for each group" - already linked before
"Wings Gaming lost the first game in the series, but subsequently won the next three games in a row to win the series" - might be better to rephrase this to Wings Gaming lost the first game in the series, but subsequently won the next three games in a row to win The International 2016 (feel free to change or ignore)
Ref 24: add "ModernMethod" to the publisher field
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
No original research found.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

It took me a while reading through this article and checking the sources, but I couldn't find any issues worthy of keeping this on hold, so I'll pass it outright. It meets the criteria as it is well written, comprehensive, and all of the sources check out and comply per WP:VG/S. Well done! JAGUAR  11:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Dang, I did not expect this to pass GAN (I even forgot it was up for review), but I'm glad to see it be promoted regardless. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
@Jaguar: Back when I reviewed this article (see Talk:The International 2016#About doing a GA review), I noted that I didn't feel qualified to review the article because I wasn't able to check ("or even comprehend") the sections "Team", "Brackets", and "Main event". These sections take up the majority of the article, but I don't see you mention them in your review either. What do you think of these sections? ~Mable (chat) 11:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
@Maplestrip: I admit that I'm no expert on eSports, but I checked every source and the articles makes the most out of them, to be sure. Regarding the Team, Brackets, and Main event sections; I thought that they acted in a similar function to tables you normally find in articles on football world cups or an Olympics, so I didn't think anything of it. I can make sense of it, so I couldn't find any issues with clarity. Did you feel that I missed anything? JAGUAR  16:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
It's just that I had already taken a comb through the article and had pretty much given a thumbs-up for the prose. All that I was really waiting for was someone who could check the tables. I was surprised to see someone look through the prose again and not mention the tables in the final review. I mean, it makes my effort feel fairly useless too... But well, if you feel comfortable with calling this article a GA, then I'm sure they're fine.. ~Mable (chat) 19:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to make your effort feel in vain - honestly I didn't know about any of this when I first took the review. What should I have checked with the tables? Do you think they should be removed? I've seem a lot of sport-related with both prose and tables, and I suppose this technically a sports article... I really don't know. I think this is the last time I'll ever review an eSports article... JAGUAR  21:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh no, I don't want this to be the last time you review an article like this! I just don't know how to confirm the information that is in the tables and am only worried about some of it possibly being inaccurate. I'm sure it's fine, but I just didn't want to do a review without being able to properly check the information to be correct... ~Mable (chat) 21:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I can guarantee all the information inside the tables are accurate. Here is the bracket and its results from the official Dota 2 website, and here are the group results. I didn't think to add them directly as sources since the link is included in the external links, making them kind of redundant. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)