Talk:Dwellers of the Forbidden City/GA1

GA Review

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