Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Vampire: The Masquerade books/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Vampire: The Masquerade books

edit

List of Vampire: The Masquerade books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): AlexandraIDV 12:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, all! This is my second FLC, following last year's List of World of Darkness video games, and is also about the WoD series - this time about tabletop game books, organized by which game edition they were released for, and with annotations describing each item. Although I feel more confident than I did last year, this is a larger list and not in the same format, so I will again appreciate any advice and constructive criticism. AlexandraIDV 12:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comments from Dank

  • The last sentence of the lead section seems too long, compared with similar leads. Would you object to moving the second half of that sentence to somewhere else in the lead? I'm talking about "in the mid 1990s, new World of Darkness books were often top sellers,[2] and by 2001, Vampire: The Masquerade was the second best selling tabletop role-playing game after TSR, Inc.'s Dungeons & Dragons."
  • Time to sleep ... I'll be back in the morning. - Dank (push to talk) 05:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dank: I think I agree, but I also don't know where else I'd put it - the reason I wrote it at that point in the first place was because it connected to and illustrated the bit about how they only rarely published adventure modules. For now I have broken it off into a separate sentence, at least.--AlexandraIDV 06:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "May 2021" (in the column "Original release") should be followed by "(projected)", "(scheduled)" or similar.
  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing.
  • FLC criteria:
  • 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding and sorting in the table seems fine.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. There's a potential issue with the one video from YouTube ... but I mostly AGF on sourcing issues, and I'll leave this for other reviewers, if they want to ask questions. Otherwise, the article is well-sourced to reliable sources (the English-language ones, anyway ... my French is terrible), and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any other problems (but this isn't a source review).
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. The one image doesn't meet the "threshold of originality" required for copyright.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support, since this is close enough to the finish line. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 02:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you! The Youtube source is actually an upload by the series owner, Paradox Interactive; when the book I'm citing it for comes out and gets reviews by RSs, I will switch to citing those instead. The French and Italian sources are major gaming magazines/websites, so they should be uncontroversial as well.--AlexandraIDV 08:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ImaginesTigers

Relevant criteria
1. Prose:
Prose is strong and clear, as noted by Dank.
2. Lead:
The lead is engaging, and clearly establishes what will be included within the list, as well as providing useful, well-sourced background.
3a. Comprehensiveness:
I cannot say that the list includes everything that should be here, but it certainly looks incredibly thorough, with useful information (ISBN numbers, for example) about the texts, including the shift from sole publishing by White Wolf.
3b. Comprehensiveness:
Although Dank has noted the issue with one YouTube reference, it seems that the nominator knows where to find that information, and given the attention and effort poured into the article, I think she's certain to fill it in, should she get it.
3c: Comprehensiveness:
As noted, no issues.
4. Structure:
Any user aiming to find something in particular would be able to find it with no issues.
5. Style:
I'm not an expert on images or files, so I am going to leave that to others. One thing that I'll say is that, unless the footnote requirements for lists differ from that of regular main body articles, they should likely be given their own section. I don't know what opinion at large is on this (because they are not used to navigate), but it does seem to be a common practice. See 1. here and 2. here. This isn't a universal truth, so I'm happy to defer to Alexandra on this one; footnotes attached to words just always strike me as a bit ugly-looking.
6. Stability:
The article is stable.
Support
Nominator has clearly put a lot of time in to create a well-presented list, evidenced with judicious and well-chosen sources. It also seems fairly clear that she will continue to update the list as additional sources come in. Even if she weren't, it would still be a fairly clear pass. Well done! ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! I assume you mean how there's no dedicated "ref" column? I chose to handle it like this since there is not always a single source covering all the information for a given item, and since it this way makes it clear both that all information is backed up by sources, and what sources are used for what.--AlexandraIDV 21:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Makes total sense! You've obviously given it some thought. A straightforwardly good list. ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

edit

Doing now Aza24 (talk) 08:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest (completely optional) that you add ill links for Guide du rôliste galactique: "={{ill|Guide du rôliste galactique|fr}}" the search in advanced tools may help with doing this quickly (e.g. entering replace "=Guide du rôliste galactique" with "={{ill|Guide du rôliste galactique|fr}}"
  • I've gone through every ref and (rather surprisingly) found no issues in formatting or reliability. As the point raised above is optional, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 08:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Vampire:_The_Masquerade_books/archive1&oldid=996869697"