Talk:Live action role-playing game/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi! I'm going to be reviewing this article over the next few days. All additional comments are welcome. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks for your time. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

One note - In some cases you may find statements that have citations against them that only support one aspect of the statement. For example, the citation for "The setting, characters, and rules may be defined in a publication or created by the arrangers or players" only supports the rules being either "already existing" or created by a GM. The plan is to find more citations that support the rest of such statements. The full statements remain in place without every aspect being referenced because they are non-contraversial to people familiar with a number of varieties of larp, while still being informative to people unfamiliar with larp (or only familiar with one type). Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha; although that isn't the best solution, I think that it'll work for a GA in non-controversial instances. It would definetely need to be more fully cited if you wanted to try at an FAC, though. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Pre-review comments

Before I do a few review, I'm going to mention a few other things that I saw while briefly looking over the article.

1. Lead is a little short, per WP:LEAD.
2. Specific articles should usually be linked to only once in an article; in this case, I've seen role-playing game linked to at least four times.
3. Game names should be in italics.
4. A lot of the sections are too short and should probably be combined.
5. The "see also" section is pretty long and could probably be shortened... any pages already linked to in the article should probably be removed, as well as some of the "related activities."

Feel free to strike out my points if you think they've been resolved. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed suggestions, and please feel free to add more. I've fixed the simple items. It may take a day or so to flesh out the lead, and to find a better format for the "genre" and "style" lists which I think are the short-section culprits. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good; I'll do a more thorough review once you've finished those. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice work on the lead there! -Drilnoth (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. ;) I've changed the genre and style lists into paragraph format. I wonder if the article would be better rounded off if the History section came last? Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Much better! Personally, I think that the history sections should be first, but that's really a matter of personal preference. I'll do a complete review over the next two or three days. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking forward to your review. Am trying History at the start. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm heading off for a few days, I'll check in on the review when I get back. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay; thanks for letting me know. Sorry about the delay on my end! -Drilnoth (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The prose could be a little better in places; there are a few kind of choppy sentences which could be combined.

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Good work. Referencing and the other point I mentioned above would have to be better to be an FA, but I think that this passes a GA quite well. There is also at least one deadlink in the article which should be fixed as soon as possible ([1]). -Drilnoth (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - link fixed. Interesting how it ends up in "Other sports". I guess it's not a board/card game, but then neither are the roleplaying games in that category. Perhaps roleplaying games need their own category? Anyway, thanks for the effort for the review. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There really aren't enough Good Articles related to RPGs yet to justify its own section, although we can hope that they will sometime. :) Right now we just need to find the most appropriate category that there is. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)