Talk:Gary Gygax/GA1

Gary Gygax GA Review

First impressions

1. Image rationales look good.
2. Most of the linear space of the article is lists of his creations. It probably ought to be trimmed, prosified, or broken out into a list article.
3. Lots of works should have ISBNs, but don't.
4. Lots of references should have accessdates, but don't. Jclemens (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Re item #2: I have turned the lists into (passable?) prose, reducing the article space considerably. Probably some of the less notable items should be trimmed or shortened, but hopefully this is a good start.

For item #3 Yes, many of them still need ISBNs... I'll try to get to work on that soon, unless Shadzar or someone beats me to it. :)

Item #4 looks like it is coming along, thanks to Alan de Smet.

How are we looking now? BOZ (talk) 03:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm way too involved in this article to be neutral enough to discuss a GA nomination. However, I would like to commend you, BOZ, for all of your work. Shepherding an article to Good is a lot of work! I wasn't sure about prosifying the lists, but in many cases you've added context about the works and result is much strong. Thanks for all the work! — Alan De Smet | Talk 04:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Formal review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Biography section seems to be split into a large number of slmall sections; consider merging those which can't be expanded. The list of works has come a long way from my initial impressions, above. Trimming a few of the redundant works out and focusing on things he will be uniquely remembered for would improve it further.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   "Early life and inspiration" unreferenced. TSR section is under-referenced. Job titles is unreferenced.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   "Television appearances" seems trivial. Personal life starts off with his second marriage, then goes back to talking about his first--is there a good reason to be non-chronological?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

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):

   I can't read the plaque. Obviously it might be difficult to get a better picture of it, but can the inscription be put into the caption?

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   It's still got a long way to go. ON HOLD until it passes, the deadline for 0.7 expires, or y'all give up. :-) Jclemens (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Hopefully we can get all of that resolved. :) BOZ (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

10/8 re-review

Here's a status update on what I see at the moment that definitely needs fixing at the moment.

• Expand the lead section per WP:LEAD
• There are a lot of one-sentence paragraphs and one-paragraph sections. The former should be eliminated and the latter curtailed.
• The references bold Gygax's name sometimes, and other times not. Not bolding author names in references seems to be more common.

Keep chuggin'! Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

For the last item, that's what I get for copy/pasting! His name is only bolded because those link to the article itself - I should be able to fix that fairly easily and quickly. BOZ (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

10/14 re-review

• Personal life section still seems awkward.
• Three of the awards need to be sourced--Strategists' Club, Games Day, and Gen Con 2007.
• Overall, it feels like the "works" section still takes up a disproportionate part of the article. I see a couple of ways of dealing with this:

• Trim it. Dungeon Geomorphs?
• Combine the works with the chronology, so it's one integrated whole. If you look at the "gaming career" section that covers his earliest works already sort of does this.
• Some combination of the two.
• Something else entirely that I haven't thought of.

• Do look for opportunities to combine too-short paragraphs. A few things could be sourced better too--maybe it's just a matter of repeating some of the same footnotes?

Overall, prose still looks good. This has come a long way from the state it was in when we started this journey. Jclemens (talk) 02:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

10/20 re-review

• One showstopper I see: the "longbio" ref needs some way for people to be able to track it down.

Other than that, it's fine-toothed comb time. There's a good deal of copyediting to be done, but most of it isn't essential for GA status:

• Not a fail criteria, but there's still a bit more passive voice than I'd like to see. e.g. "In 1966, the International Federation of Wargamers (IFW) was created with the assistance of Gygax.[10] This organization was composed of several wargaming clubs, and it served to promote interest in the medieval period and provided a forum for international wargamers" That's two passive voice sentences in a row.
• "Gen Con is also where Gary Gygax would meet Brian Blume, and, at the second Gen Con in August 1969, Dave Arneson" Did he meet Blume at Gen Con I? If not, the antichronological order is somewhat misleading.
• "To free up time to pursue his interest in game development"--pick one, lose the other. Either works, both together are awkward.
• "The Blumes soon sold their stock to Williams, removing Gygax's controlling stake in the company." Per the following block quote, Gygax was a minority shareholder at that point anyways.

Each iteration brings you closer--fix the longbio ref and we can call it good. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :) I'll take care of the items you mentioned, and see the article's talk page for comments regarding "longbio". BOZ (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

10/24

Passing. It's been a long road, gentlemen, but you have done an admirable job of taking an article that had a lot of information, and making it into a cohesive whole. It was a significant effort, and I've appreciated your responsiveness and diligence in dealing with the issues I've pointed out. Jclemens (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)