Talk:Dwellers of the Forbidden City

Notability concern

Again removed notability tag. I believe that it's ranking (cited in article) by Mona et. al. is sufficient for notability. Willing to hear other's opinions Hobit (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss before edit-warring, not afterwards. This comes back to the multiply discussed issue as to whether Dungeon can really be considered independent of TSR/WotC. There was a grand total of one non-TSR non-WotC module in that list, after all. --Pak21 (talk) 07:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

So the issue of this source has been questioned before... I would submit that this amounts to it being a questionable source and that any viable claim to notability should rely on something else. Absent that, the notability concern tag is entirely warranted and should remain until better sources are provided or this article ends up redirected or deleted. Regards, Jack Merridew 12:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Questioned != unreliable --Pak21 (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The question is not about their reliability but to their independence. Please seek a reliable third-party source to establish notability. see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources (specifically the part about are promotional in nature), and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline bulleted point "Independent of the subject". --Jack Merridew 15:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

At the time of publication, Dungeon was third-party, being written and published by Paizo Publishing, who were (and still are) an entirely separate company from Wizards of the Coast. Given that, I think a presumption of independence is fine until such time as it is shown that they were not. --Pak21 (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, the "new sources" you've added fail Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline -- which requires "Significant coverage" — not 3 words or a mere 'rating'. --Jack Merridew 15:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... what I've quoted is a summary of each review, not the entire thing. Stop trying to find fault with absolutely everything here. --Pak21 (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm done discussing this with you for today. This is still not notable and all of these will, ultimately, end up gone. see also: WP:GAMEGUIDE. Regards, Jack Merridew 15:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• You and Gavin both need to learn what WP:GAMEGUIDE is and why a module isn't one. The notability claims can be argued, but this claim is like calling a horse a type of plant. Hobit (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have reviewed all the sources cited at the time of writing and either they are sourced from the publishers (TSR and its related publications) and the 'reviews' are trivial in their coverage. Dungeon can be classed as a reliable source, but in this case the coverage is very trivial as it provides no evidence of notability. Please restate the Template:notability template, as there is no sober justification for its removal. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, the ranking is quite sober justification. Hobit (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been adding game reviews from White Dwarf which was an independent british internationally-circulated magazine to many of these articles, however they are in boxes in my garage and it's >30C here and humid which makes it kinda frustrating to do too much. The reviews are substantive, and I know this one has had one but the specific WD issues I have moved somewhere. Shouldn't be too long though. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

For this article check out the WDs before issue 23. I have some gaps in the early ones so I am hoping that there is more there. WD had a lot of realy good stuff back in the day. Web Warlock (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing your contributions, and I hope they will be good ones. the quality of the citation is always important; for example if the magazine says "Buy this module now! Its a really great game!", then it is of no value. However, if it forms a part of a serious article such as "Dwellers of the Forbidden City: Seminal module in the development of D&D" then you have knock out evidence of notability right there; context and analysis are key to establishing this. I will assume you will not try to dress up trivial references to the module as reliable secondary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

GAN

After discussion at WT:DND about getting this up to GA-Class, I think that it is ready for nomination. However, I am not very familiar with the module so I'll let someone else who might know a little more nominate it so that they can better deal with any issues presented during the review. Let me know how else I can help! -Drilnoth (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

About the only thing we're missing is... well, a plot summary. Any plot summary at all. ;) There's a few details mentioned, but someone reading this article would have absolutely no idea what actually happens to PCs in the module. We get that, I'll nom it. I have a lot of D&D books that I'm waiting to get my hands on, including this one, and hopefully it will happen sometime this month. But right now, I'll have to depend on someone else. :) BOZ (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good! I'll make a few final tweaks and then I'm ready for a nomination. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

While you're doing that, I was about to get to the nominating. ;) BOZ (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Can't wait! -Drilnoth (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I loved this article - go the yuan ti! Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dwellers of the Forbidden City/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. I am going to run through it as I noticed a few copy editing issues I can take care of for you. However, I did want to give the following comments:

Comments

• The article is very short. Perhaps you could expand it by explaining a little more. For exampe:

• ready-to-play adventure
• tournament module
• since it was for the first edition "rules", maybe you could explain how the rules differed.
• maybe explain a little about the concept of "modules"

• Also, is there not more available under "Reception"?
• Not sure what "waylaid" means in "Most of the waylaid merchants and guards have been killed,"

The article is well written, especially the "Plot" section. My concern is its comprehensiveness —Mattisse (Talk) 02:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks; I'll take a look into these soon. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I probably won't have time to look into this tonight, but hopefully soon. BOZ (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I can do some of this at the moment, though, especially the quick things. First of all, "way-laid" isn't anywhere near as good as it sounds. ;) Merriam Webster defines "to lie in wait for or attack from ambush", so I'd say in this case the merchants and guards were not the ones doing the waylaying, but were in fact the subjects thereof. :) I'll get some more explanations going, where I can. BOZ (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully I did a good job, there. Not sure how helpful a rules explanation would be, given I really couldn't say how the rules changes would have affected the play of the module itself. :) Probably not much of a difference, that is; saying what edition of the rules were used places the module more into a historical context then anything else. BOZ (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm just throwing out suggestions which may or may not be good. But the article is only 828 words "readable prose size", not that I am counting!:) —Mattisse (Talk) 05:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • You may want to specify a minimum size, if you think there is one. It can be very hard to find reliable sources that discuss these D&D adventure articles, and this is probably close to as big as it can get. If it's too small, we can work on some alternative. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• There is no minimun size. I am sorry that I gave that impression. I was trying to inspire the editors to add more content to this article as it does not seem comprehensive, but that was a poor choice on my part! —Mattisse (Talk) 05:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Not a problem. I work on these articles, and it can be really hard to find sources. If this passes, I think we may need to think about merging some of these articles. This one is part of a series of 14, for instance. Ideally, I'd like to see this one as a GA, and then we can think about which ones we may need a merge so they can meet the GAC. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

We'll do what we can - certainly agree that we'd like to have more, but not sure about what can be expanded enough. We have other module GAs (Ravenloft, Dragons of Despair, Tomb of Horrors) that might give us some clues about what we can do here. Those three have had followup material that Dwellers may not have had, though. BOZ (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, I bet if we can get a look at the module's reviews (and maybe there was one in Dragon magazine?), we could probably add more about what those reviews say to the reception section. RPGnet is blocked for me here, but I could look at it later, and I don't have White Dwarf magazine to look at. It strikes me that since the material from the reviews was brought up at the AFD as a criticism, so that's something we can and should fix now. BOZ (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll try and check White Dwarf and Dragon mag. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I added what Dungeon mag said. I just quoted the whole thing. We'll probably want to summarize it, but I figured everyone might want to see it in its entirety. I always figured the top 30 list was just a list, but it's got fat paragraphs for 30 through 6, mulitpe paragraphs for 5 through 2, and I giant full page #1 (Queen of the Spiders). Mattisse making us look a little harder is really going to pay off. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm feeling a little lazy about typing it, but White Dwarf #40 also has a very detailed review. It's not favorable, so would make a good juxtaposition to the Dungeon review. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The best part about the GA review process is that a good reviewer will ask you a lot of things that you may not have thought of yourself. :) Good call on adding the Dungeon text, but yes we shouldn't list the whole thing; I completely forgot how that article actually includes useful text, so I'll have to see if I can dig out a copy! As for WD, I agree completely; see if you can dig out a few useful tidbits. BOZ (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have the WD and will see what I can add later. I think I have lost my copy of the damn module :((( searched for a few days now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was in your garage? :) Do you have a copy of Different Worlds #16, or did someone else (WebWarlock maybe?) add that one? BOZ (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hope you find the book! Pak21 (talk · contribs) added the Different Worlds ref (see diff), and (s)he is still pseudo-active. I'll add a note at the talk page to see if more info can be provided. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the White Dwarf info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Great! That section looks much better now. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, a much better read. BOZ (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse asked on the talk page (in the wrong section) if we're ready to go. What do you think? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure; an updated re-review is a good idea. BOZ (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Let me know when you think you are finish. Great progress so far! —Mattisse (Talk) 00:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it's ready. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Congratulations! 03:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. This GAN review has been helpful in a number of ways. Also, thank you for your copyedit of the article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. :) BOZ (talk) 06:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! In Dec 2007 this article was tagged for deletion by some over zealous deletionists. Since then a lot of people a lot of people have worked on it to get from deleted status to GA. Great job everyone. And when someone asks how long an article edit needs to be, then let this be an example. Afterall isn't the goal to get good, usefull information here and not on someone else's timeline? Web Warlock (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur! Although it's worth noting that the AFD was started by someone who didn't want the article to be deleted, not be deletionists. The discussion got rather interesting because of that. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The nominator was trying to prove a point, and almost failed... when the article actually got deleted! However, the deletion was overturned at DRV, which is why we are able to be here today with it. :) You could say I was trying to prove a point myself by nominating it for GA, and I think I succeeded this time. ;) BOZ (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, you may have been making a point, but you weren't disrupting Wikipedia to make it! -Drilnoth (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Dwellers of the Forbidden City

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Dwellers of the Forbidden City's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "WD40":

• From White Plume Mountain: Bambra, Jim (1983). "Open Box - White Plume Mountain Review". White Dwarf. 40. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• From The Ghost Tower of Inverness: "The Ghost Tower of Inverness". White Dwarf. 40. 1983. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• From The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan: "Open Box - The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan Review". White Dwarf. 40. 1983. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I fixed this. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)