Talk:Unearthed Arcana/GA1

GA Review

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

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Examples

   "Announced by its author as "an interim volume to expand..." what was announced?

   "Divided into two sections (one for players and one for" what was divided?

   "The book gives details on using various "subraces" of the standard races as player characters, such as dark elves (drow), and deep gnomes (svirfneblin)." poorly worded - the term subrace should immediatly describe what it is, ie a subrace of eleves or gnomes then say that they are for player characters - though the latter also fails for being unfactual and misleading since they can be for NPCs as well. Finally link subrace to Subspecies so people completely unfamiliar with D&D can understand what they are equivalent to in real-world context.

   "Although much of the material in Unearthed Arcana had previously appeared in Dragon" add magazine - the sentance should require the user to click on the wikilink to find out Dragon is in fact a magazine.

   "The second book called Unearthed Arcana...for use with the 3rd edition Dungeons & Dragon rules. " - Should be "An updated version of Unearthed Arcana for use with the 3rd edition Dungeons & Dragon rules..."

   B. MoS compliance:

   Lead is too short

   History section is missing, content about the creation should be motion to a "creation origins" type section {See:D&D style guidelines

   Furthermore, there is no "See also" section, where at least some links not present above are also relevant. Anything basic rule like classes, magic, etc that the book alters as well as references to stuff like Powercreep. Finally move the reception sections to 1 section and just subdivide the two.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   yes, but it's likely to need more. Especially the reception sections are wanting, not to mention the missing sections, especially history.

   C. No original research:

   "...and was therefore familiar to many D&D players,..." - orginal research

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   see style guidelines

   B. Focused:

   reception sections should be in their own sections

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:

   Unearthed Arcana coverthumb.jpg - needs explaination why it's appropriate, who the copyright holder is, etc. See the other image for good idea what.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Thanks for the fair review. I didn't realize there were that many problems in need of fixing. I've straightened up a few of the examples you mention. I'd do more, but, well... it's late. :) BOZ (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll see about fixing some of these and then renominating. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"The second book called Unearthed Arcana...for use with the 3rd edition Dungeons & Dragon rules.

" - Should be "An updated version of Unearthed Arcana for use with the 3rd edition Dungeons & Dragon rules..."

Strongly disagree. It's got the same title, and arguably the same role, but should not be described as an update. That would imply to most that the original material was updated for 3rd edition, which is strongly misleading. --74.131.106.77 (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)