Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Demoscene/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Demoscene

An interesting article regarding an amazingly creative and artistic subculture which was born from the hands of software pirates during the 1980s and continues to thrive in the 21st century. I believe this document is worthy of being a featured article on Wikipedia. —RaD Man (talk) 23:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Object and refer to peer review. Needs copy-edit for one. Consider sentences like: When a cracked program was started, the cracker or his team would take credit via an increasingly impressive-looking graphical introduction or intro. Over what period of time does the impressiveness of the artwork increase? Or: Since any given computer platform before the PC age meant every computer of a given line had identical capabilities, a comparison between demos on earlier platforms was directly possible. This sentence is barely comprehensible. Generally, the prose is not outstanding.
The author is also obviously fascinated by the subject, as the article has a rather biased tone: Where games/application writers were concerned with stability/functionality of their software, the demo writer was typically interested in how many CPU cycles a routine would consume and how best to squeeze as much effects and activity onto the screen. or most demos were written by groups with interesting names. Moreover, the prose to links ratio is extraordinarily low. See for example the Parties section, a collection of over a dozen links, with little to no context. (What is a party in this context?)
Lastly, the use of two images by the same demoscene artist group also feels like advertising. Images are for representative illustration purposes: if the cultural movement in question is large enough to deserve an article, the images should represent a broader spectrum of demoscene graphics. Phils 00:53, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Object Couldn't understand the first sentence, and stopped after there (sorry). Let me know when you've done a copyedit and I'll re-read, jguk 00:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Peer Review. Nice subject, and will be a good candidate with some work, specifically:
  1. Technical aspects... most readers will associate a PC demo with either a) A preview of a video game or b) a product showcase. PC demos are much, much more than that - can we go into the technical aspects of what makes a PC Demo so special?
  2. Parties are briefly skipped over, "Assembly" and "The Party in particular have had an enormous impact on the scene and this needs discussed
  3. Groups are hardly mentioned (Farbrausch is singled out for fr-08, but that's about it). Some focus on some of the more influential groups is needed... off the top of my head Future Crew, Triton, TMD are particularly influential but there are others
  4. Particular demos... can we go into a little more detail on this?
  5. POV issues need to be resolved, it's not bad but it could be better. Zerbey 01:22, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Refer to Peer Review. What they^ said. — mark ✎ 00:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The list-to-text ratio is pretty high. Only 7 paragraphs - it needs much more text, and the list of groups should probably be broken out into its own article, with mentions of notable groups in the main article. Rhobite 02:41, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)