Talk:Lone Wolf (gamebooks)/GA1
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA Reassessment
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force, all old good articles are being re-reviewed to ensure that they meet current good article criteria (as detailed at WP:WIAGA. This article is much better than most that I've swept, however there are a few issues that need to be addressed.
- There are some grammatical and stylistic inconsistencies throughout the article. In some cases, gamebook is one word; in other instances it's two. Lone Wolf should be italicized throughout, but it's formatted that way only intermittently.
- There are lots of one or two-line 'paragraphs' sitting all by their lonesome, that aren't really paragraphs (three or more sentences at minimum.) These need to either be cut, merged into an appropriate section, or fleshed out with more information.
- I think there's certainly room for a non-free image in keeping with WP:NFCC, but I'm not sure it's File:Lonewolforiginalgame.gif. Perhaps an image of the books would be better in providing compelling additional information. Other choices would be a logo, if it's a commonality. You could also see if there's another image of Joe Dever to add some visual interest (I'm not a fan of simply taking images already on the parent articles).
- I'm concerned about some weasel words and bias slipping in to phrases (original research and POV writing.) For example: " Random House stopped publishing the novelizations after the twelfth book because "the books weren't selling," though the truth of this statement is contested." The attached source mentions nothing about the "truth" being contested. Another example: " They have received mixed reviews from fans." isn't supported by the citation in the following sentence. Nor is "The game was well received by several game magazines." (it's cited to only one review of questionable reliability.)
- Along the above lines: "The high quality of Joe Dever's descriptive prose receives especial praise, as well as the fact that the books, if played together, form a cohesive continuing story, with recurring characters (something not often seen in gamebooks). / Even so, the books are not without criticism. Wavering difficulty is a common criticism made about the series. The battles tend to be either too hard or too easy. This is mostly attributed to the attainment of the Sommerswerd (a sword forged by gods) in the second book Fire on the Water which drastically increases the wielder's combat abilities. Another reason for this would be the fact that a player can start with drastically different stats. Finally, because the books were written to be functional both as a series and as stand alone adventures, the question of whether or not a player would have access to certain special weapons and abilities made difficulty hard to gauge." Needs to be cut or reworded and sourced.
- Another one: "There has long been uncertainty amongst fans as to which version of the series is canon. Joe Dever has stated that as the game books precede the novelization, they are the "authoritative" versions.[5]" is supported by the following statement: "There are quite a few inconsistencies between the Lone Wolf series and the Legends of Lone Wolf series. Which, if any, should we take as authoritative?" He doesn't mention canon and there's no discussion about fan uncertainty.
- The plot is a bit dense and not accessible to someone who hasn't read the books. It would be better to cut it down and focus on the setting and characters rather than trying to give book-by-book recountings.
Given the above issues, I am boldly delisting the article. I suggest that someone go line-by-line through the article and make sure that every bit of information is sourced properly and reliably; some of the citations (for example: Project Aon) don't appear to meet criteria. Remember that you can renominate through WP:GAN at any time you feel it meets criteria. Direct any questions or comments to my talk page please, I don't watchlist these reviews due to the sheer number of them. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)