Talk:Dragons of Despair/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Notes on article

1. Lead seems good.
2. Perhaps change "In the same month as the module was released the issue of Dragon had a short story" to "In the March issue of Dragon, ... published a short story"

   This doesn't seem to big of a deal, however. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

1. It has been resolved. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

2. These two sentences may not be NPOV: "It was seen as well written and presented with a unique feel to the world it is set in, even if it was felt the plot of taking a powerful magic item to the heart of the enemies defences was lifted straight out of The Lord of the Rings. The module focuses on story and character without losing sight of what makes a D&D adventure truly great. "
3. Some more wikification of staff names might be nice, if they ever may be notably enough for an article.
4. Could "faithfully" in "It is a horizontally-scrolling fighting game that faithfully represents the events of the module." possibly be NPOV?
5. Maybe change "Synopsis" section to "Plot Summary" and perhaps move to top of article?
6. "This is an extremely challenging task for party and they will likely be aided by the goddess Mishakal through her Blue Crystal Staff." "Will likely"? That doesn't seem like it should belong. Would it be possible to find out precisely?

   End of comments by ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what you mean on item #5? BOZ (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think he meant that the "faithfully" wasn't completely NPOV, especially without a citation, and that's why I removed it, although I could certainly be wrong. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. That's fixed now. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at the listed items, and it looks like they have probably all been fixed, except for #3. Not sure what can be done withouth going to the original sources, in this case reviews of the module. I could try to rewrite them with less POV, but at the same time I don't want to ruin what the reviews were actually saying. :) BOZ (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possibly to get some of those reviews and cite them? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Review by ErikTheBikeMan

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Per issues raised in notes. Shouldn't requite too much work to fix. Also, some clarification for people not familiar with D&D (such as myself) would be nice. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   The first sentence of the "Reprints and revisions" section could use a citation. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Seems to drift at times to encompass other release versions and games. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Two edits in nearly a month, both to fix minor things. About as stable as it gets. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Are there images?

   B. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   C. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   The image, however, is in an infobox and context should make it fairly obvious what the image is. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Above has been fixed. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

2. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Placing on hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see what I can do. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the fair review, I'll help work on it over the weekend. :) BOZ (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the NPOV sentences, they are both cited to reliable secondary sources... do they just need a rewrite, or is removal more appropriate? -Drilnoth (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What parts of the article are straying from the main topic? -Drilnoth (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what we can do about getting the concerns raised under items #2 and #3 of the review fixed. BOZ (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What's left

1. These two sentences may not be NPOV: "It was seen as well written and presented with a unique feel to the world it is set in, even if it was felt the plot of taking a powerful magic item to the heart of the enemies defences was lifted straight out of The Lord of the Rings. The module focuses on story and character without losing sight of what makes a D&D adventure truly great. "

1. Hm... The ref is offline... Well, I think we could put those sentences in quotes (if, of course, they're from the article) and that should work. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • I'll see if I can find someone with hardcopies. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Seems to drift at times to encompass other release versions and games.
2. Also, some clarification for people not familiar with D&D (such as myself) would be nice.

I'm going to try and look into these tomorrow. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that I added some clarification and removed the "drift" to other games. I've asked User:Ant Brooks if he has a copy of White Dwarf #60 to better cite that line, since he appears to have access to some other early issues. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Drift looks cleaned-up and I was able to understand the plot summary. One somewhat confusing line was "adventures assume a certain course of action is taken," which I went ahead and changed to "a certain course of action is assumed by the adventure." If anyone has any objections, change it back. The only issue still unresolved seems to be the unsourced review statement. While I won't have any objections to passing the review with the article the way it is, I'm going to hold off for a few more days to see if Ant can cite that. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Both Ant Brooks and Webwarlock appear to have White Dwarf #60, so hopefully that will be made into a verbatim quote rather than paraphrasing; I'll remove the other line that you mentioned in your NPOV note. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done; I think that all of the above issues have been resolved, although let me know if I missed any or if you notice something else. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything else that needs doing? BOZ (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Sorry, I havn't had time all week, but I'm now promoting. 15:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for all of your help. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You guys are welcome. Nice work on the article. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)