# Talk:The International 2017

@Dissident93: Similar to Ti6, I've looked over this article a bit and besides some primary sources (which are still fine) and maybe copyediting, it seems ready for GA. Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@DatGuy: Nice. And by primary sources, you mean the ones from blog.dota2.com? It's mostly the announcement stuff that I couldn't find reported on by reliable sources at the time, but maybe that's different now. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@DatGuy: Do you want to nominate it now? I would do it myself, but I think GA reviewers prefer editors other than the primary contributor to do that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
@Dissident93: I'm not sure about the summary of the grand finals games. Sounds a bit weird. If you think it's appropriate, just ping me again and I'll nominate it. I'm pretty sure that GA people don't mind who nominated it though. Dat GuyTalkContribs 12:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
That was actually by another user, which probably explains it. I'll take a look and see if I can make it more encyclopedic. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
@DatGuy: OK, I gave it a bit of a cleanup, but if that wasn't good enough I could just re-write the entire section. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
@Dissident93: Looks good. I nominated it in your name. Dat GuyTalkContribs 13:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Just dropping in and noticed that there aren't attendance figures listed for the event as a whole, or the grand final. While not necessarily standard for e-sports, it would be a pretty valuable comparison to other spectator sports, which always list the attendance in infoboxes and in the prose. SounderBruce 23:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

No source reported on venue attendance numbers as far as I'm aware, only viewership numbers from online livestreams. If you can find one however, then it should be added. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The International 2017/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 10:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful. 
If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)
I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy. 
Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


### Immediate Failures
It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria - No, not too far away for
It contains copyright infringements - Copyvio check comes up clean
It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). - Nothing at start of review
It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. - No signs of edit warring


### Links
External link to "Official website". Should be noted what this official website is for. Could be many things. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Isn't it obviously for the tournament? Although the URL is dynamic and changes based on what TI is being played, so going to that non-archived URL now would just take you to TI8s. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


### Prose
#### Lede
To be noted - Articles such as this, should follow other sports articles, rather than video game articles and should follow a similar pattern. The article is regarding a video game tournament, but mostly covers a sporting tournament. The same layout should be for most sports.  Some of these points listed will be because they don't conform to similar trends in sports articles.

The International 2017 (TI7) - Generally, lede's open with "title (abbreviated as ###)'", rather than cold letters. It should be noted that the article doesn't use this abbreviation at all outside of the lede, so could be ignored. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
"TI" as an abbreviation is probably used more than the full name by sources/the event itself, so this could just be changed in prose. I just thought it would look less professional going with TI7 on every mention. Even if it's not used in the article, I still disagree that it should be removed, because how does removing 3 letters help the article at all? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
"seventh iteration" - iteration could be the wrong word. edition is probably better Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd like a second opinion on this, because I don't agree (probably a regional thing). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Just checked it out, it's fine. They are equatable. My mistake Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
"the tournament began with the qualifier phase in June 2017, and ended after the main event..." - Generally, sports articles say: The event took place between DD-DD Month and qualifying was between DD-DD Month, and was held at LOCATION. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Qualifiers are held online, teams don't actually meet up until the group stage days before the main event. eSports are not sports and should not always follow the same 1:1 standard because of their differences. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually, the article never mentions the qualifiers are held online. it simply says there are "regional qualifiers". There may be some issues regarding calling them online qualifiers, as the game in question is an online game (even if the finals are hosted on VLAN, or LAN). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Main event is held live with the two teams physically facing each other. But I agree that qualifiers being hosted online (like any private game) should be mentioned somewhere. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. I could simply see how it might be confusing to have an "online stage", and an "in person" stage, when the game is online. I'm sure you'll word it correctly though. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
This should be at least two paragraphs. The opening paragraph should state what the competition was, and what dates it took place, and then the second more in-depth about the article. The second paragraph should mention what happened with the previous years tournament winners, followed by how the finals went. The final sentence should be regarding why the event was notable (IE, Prize money). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
The infobox only lists the dates of the main competition (I think, as it's not sourced). This should also include the qualifiers. There's also some confusion for me as to what is listed as being the "main event", as most championships have a qualifying phase, and a main tournament. This also seems to have a group stage as well, (Which is an American thing, I know) which is confusing to me, and should be explained. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Again, qualifiers are held online and its dates are cited in prose. Just adding a bunch of dates there would be more confusing to understand than just going with the actual part of the tournament. Group stage is just used to seeding into the bracket of the main event, I thought the prose explained this pretty well? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
The group stage has over 100 matches in it, so that would make it quite important. There are also teams that are removed from the competition at this stage. It's certainly not insignicant enough for two sentences. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't disagree, but there really isn't a reliable source that actually states this that I've ever found, so would that be a problem? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Even a few bits of information as to who went into each bracket would be something, the tables should enhance the prose, not replace them. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, it's just hard to actually find sources that reported on the qualifier stage. The most I've ever been able to find are dates or incidents that occurred during them, such as when a team was disqualified from TI8's for having a player use mouse macros (against the rules). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


#### Background and format
Potentially the title should be changed. I personally prefer "Tournament overview", and have sections for Background (around the event, and the game) and Format (The format of the competition, and the teams involved.) 

Sounds fine with me. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
"The game is a free-to-play, but financially supported by Valve with a variety of microtransactions such as cosmetic items for its heroes" - Is this sentence necessary? The information should be at Dota 2, but not on an event regarding it. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Is explaining what the event actually being played is a bad thing? It could probably be removed, but I don't think it's unnecessary either. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- No, background on how the game is played, and similar is fine. I just don't seem to see how the pay structure and it being free to play is relevent. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, the only thing that actually matters from the game's pricing model is the battle pass that funds the prize pool. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
a corresponding digital compendium for Dota 2 was released before the event," - I'm not sure what this is. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
That's the name of the in-game battle pass that funds the prize pool, although it probably should be explained better. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
"Known as a battle pass, 25% of revenue made by it was sent directly towards the tournament's prize pool" - Usually sports articles have very little information as to where the prize money came from, but this should be in the "prize money" section. (see below) Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Because most sports don't have crowdfunded prize money. This is almost unique to Dota/TI, so I don't see why you don't see the importance of it. Again, you are focusing too much on the "its a tournament so it has to follow sports standard" rules here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
The final section doesn't seem to go into much information for me. Why doesn't the article cover any information regarding the qualifiers? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Because sources generally skip covering the exact matches of the qualifiers and just mention who won/came from them. Just look at the open qualifier stage, and you will see there are twelve separate brackets that featured 31 matches each for a total of 372 matches, 99% of them being unnotable on their own. And that's not even counting the main qualifiers, which featured its own group stage and bracket. If you can find sources that actually mention these in as much detail as the main event got, then go ahead and add it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Information over the casting of hosts etc. should be it's own paragraph really, it seems really different to the rest of the information in the section.
Fair enough. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


#### Teams
"directly invited" - Change to invited directly Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Once again, I'd like to see more information regarding the qualifiers. Why does CIS get one place, whilst China gets three? (Surely it's a size thing, but not explained) Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Not even the teams/players know, Valve sets the numbers based on regions they believed were strong enough to deserved more spots. If you think this could actually be explained in the article somehow, I wouldn't oppose it.
Should potentially be mentioned, but I have no idea how you would word it. This doesn't seem particularly transparent to me. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not, and its basically why the Dota Pro Circuit was formed. (now the top 8 ranking teams at the end of the DPC season earn direct invites to TI, with the another 8/10 earning it via qualifiers) ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
The rosters of two independent teams, Planet Dog and Team NP, were signed after the qualifier stage respectively by the eSports organizations HellRaisers and Cloud9. - Not explained. What makes an team independent? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Not being sponsored or funded by an organization. These teams were formed by players leaving other teams and then signed with an organization shortly before the main event. Doing so simply changed their name and branding.
Valve tournament rules allow for players to freely play for another team or organization without restrictions, as long as the rosters remain the same. - If a player plays for another team, how is the roster still the same? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I meant "team" as in organization, so this could be more clear. Planet Dog and Team NP are perfect examples of it, because they played the main event as HellRaisers and Cloud9. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I understand now, the wording should be changed to say they were simply changing who they were aligned with, rather than changing teams/team members Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Do you have a suggestion then? I recall struggling to find a clear way to explain this even back then. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


#### Results
This should go into more details regarding the group stage. There really isn't much information, except for who qualified for what. There's no information regarding who defeated the other teams, or even any news of the group stage, considering this would have been the bulk of the tournament with hundreds of matches in this stage (16 for each team.) Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

See my response above, you are unlikely to ever get this info from a reliable source. And the qualifiers aren't that important anyway, 100s of online matches played when only the team who won them matters (which is sourced in the article already). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
The bottom placed team of both groups were eliminated entirely. - lowest placed team were eliminated from the competition. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Add the sources to the end of the sentence, rather than sourcing the tables with a line each.
Where? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
The Group stage sources. As they are the same for both groups, it seems irrelevent to source them this way. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
That's because the "source" footnote there remains even if you don't include anything, so I figured I might as well make use of the parameter. If you can find a way to hide that, then go ahead. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm absolutely shocked that this can't be supressed! It's fine.
The tournament bracket headers should ALL state what the matches are out of. (Best of 3). "best of ones" should be (best of 1), or equivalent. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Again, where? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
In the bracket headers. Where it says which round it was. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Maybe, but only the first round of the loser's bracket and grand finals were anything other than a Bo3, so I didn't see the point in redundancy. This was already mentioned in prose too. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
It would only be redundent if it were true in all cases. If other rounds are different, it's not consistent in my eyes. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, even the Liquidpedia bracket includes the info per round. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
The main event featured two brackets in the double-elimination tournament format. - in a double.. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
"while the losing team would then be placed in respective rounds of the lower bracket" - to someone like me unaware of how double elimination works, this is confusing. The losing team is actually placed into the next round of the lower bracket. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Check the actual bracket for why this isn't the case. See my response below. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Why are there no Semi-finals and quarter finals for the lower bracket? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
There are, but the bracket format needs to be custom made to work on Wikipedia. This is how it should actually look. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
It's Simply the bracket headers. I've made the change, now I've seen the main brackets Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
This whole section needs more prose about how the teams got on. Was there any upsets, or anything? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
As far as I remember, it was pretty straightforward with the stronger teams dominating. TI6 is the one that had the upsets (which sources reported on). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
The first column of the bracket should be wikilinked. (In fact, are the other teams not wikilinked non-notable? Should they be redlinks instead? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
All teams that aren't linked don't have an article and pretty much never will (as some of them don't exist anymore), so a redlink isn't going to be helpful.
So, non-notable? That's fine Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
avoid the word "sweeping" - as WP:JARGON. "Completed a clean sweep" is ok, but the target article I could find didn't really work. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Is it jargon if it has a real definition? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, the word sweep (and by proxy "sweeping") does have a meaning. But I'm assuming by the context, you mean that they won the match as a whitewash, which isn't the primary use of the word. Oxford English Dictionary refers to this use as being mostly North American, which is may be why I was confused. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Wasn't aware that it was North American specific term, but I'm also unaware of how you would better put that. Winning a series without loosing a game in one has to have another term that is region-free? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd use "clean sweep" as before, which is what "sweeping" would be derived from. I'm not against the wording, it just seems better. Whatever Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Is there more publications that followed the event? A reception section would be better than the PC Gamer information. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Beyond what is already there, not really. Maybe a stray ESPN article or something. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
"PC Gamer described Liquid's swift playstyle as a "dominating snowball" strategy" - The phrase needs context Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
How? It could just be removed instead, because I don't see how you give context to a quote they stated. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Indeed,I don't really see how it fits. We can't really read into it, unless they expand in the point in the source. I'd remove it if it can't be explained. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Well if you do want context, then Liquid won all three games in a fast, aggressive style that pretty much left Newbee with no chance with winning them. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


#### Winnings
Change title to "Prize Money". Winnings is very informal. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

How was the team listing calculated?Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
What do you mean? The percentage of winnings allocated to each team? It's something Valve decided on years ago (that never changed), but it could probably be removed as it technically doesn't have a source. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


### Notes & References
The notes require a source. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
They are sourced in prose alongside the notes. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
As always, the references look good. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

There's a lot here that could potentially need some looking at before we can proceed.


### GA Review
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 (reference section):  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 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: 

Dissident93 - Thank you for your time in listening to my concerns about the article. I have now passed it to GA. I'd still like more prose written about the group stage, as it feels like this is close to not passing point 3. I would also like to comment on there not currently being a MOS for esports tournaments, and may raise this with the VG WikiProject, as articles such as this will only grow and multiply over time.
Also, thank you for your patience with region free terms. Not all articles have to be written in American English, or British English, but obviously, if we ignore regional wording, it helps everyone. 
Congratulations on passing this GA. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I personally don't think I addressed enough of your points for it to pass GAN, but I'll continued working and expanding the article as I've always done regardless. I'll try and expand group stage info with at least the basic details (exact matches and such aren't covered, as I've already explained). This will also be done for TI6, another GA, and TI8, the current one I'm working on. And yes, we do need a specialized MOS for eSports, as they continue to grow by the year and Wikipedia has pretty much no specific guidelines for them. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)