Talk:Forgotten Realms/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA and am listing my comments below. I copyedited the article and slightly reworded and fix punctuation. Many of the changes I made were to punctuation in quotations. See: MoS: Quotation marks. Feel free to change any mistakes in wording I may have made. So far I have the following comments:

Comments

"Ed Greenwood wrote Forgotten Realms stories since his early childhood, starting around 1967"
Winter, Steve; Greenwood, Ed; Grubb, Jeff. 30 Years of Adventure: A Celebration of Dungeons & Dragons, pages 74-87. (Wizards of the Coast, 2004).

There is no book by this author with this title at Amazon.com

It can be seen here. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give some time frames in the lead, some dates to orient the reader.
- I think we got that covered, now. :) BOZ (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If possible, put references at the end of a sentence, if it covers the whole sentence. It is best not to frequently interrupt sentences with citations in the middle.
"Official support for this product line" - is that by the RPGA?
- Yes, Done. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Under Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition, is everything under this heading part of the 2nd edition?

This section runs on some, from the general reader's point of view.

All of it was 2nd edition; that was the setting's most popular years. Done with the run-on. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Several accessories were released for the new edition" - for the general reader, what are accessories?
- Done. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The world intro section reads like it was copied from somewhere; also it had no citations.
- Do you have any ideas as to how it could be changed to not look copied? It looks fine to me, although it was indeed copied (in this case from the article's lead). -Drilnoth (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should The world section go where it is, at the end. It seems like it should come first. Are you following an article structure laid out by a project?
- Much of the World section can easily be confirmed by a look through the official rulebooks, although I can more specifically cite it if needed. I'll look into rewording it's lead. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Mattisse (Talk) 22:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into these momentarily. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about the location of The world section. To me it seems analogous to the Plot section of an article. It orients the reader who does not already know about D&D, so that the rest makes more sense. Is there is a standard format to put such sections at the end? —Mattisse (Talk) 01:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point; I'll move it. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

I am not understanding why there is not a whole lot more under Reception. You quote someone as saying In his book, The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer's Bible, and that Sean Patrick Fannon describes the Forgotten Realms as being "the most ambitious fantasy game setting published since Tekumel". Therefore, why aren't there many sources describing the impact under Reception?
- Most references in the D&D community are unreliable, so its harder to find sources that meet WP:RS. It's also uncommon to find reliable information that discusses the setting as a whole from a "reception" standpoint, rather than focusing on individual products or editions. I can look into finding more if wanted, although it could take some time. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Various products detailing specific areas of Faerûn have been released" - what are these?
- Should I list a few or just rewrite the sentence? -Drilnoth (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I had listed some, but someone went and excised them. :P BOZ (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, you caught me. :) 'Twas just trying make the section less list-like. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The world section doesn't seem very complete. The rest of the article is great.
- The section doesn't really feel complete because it is primarily in-universe (and we're keeping that to a minimum), and because their are other main articles for each of the topics. I'm not sure how to really make it better, although if you have any ideas that would be great! -Drilnoth (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I commented out some of the article under The world as the writing style was not right for the encyclopedia, and it seemed like it was copied from something else with a different writing style.

—Mattisse (Talk) 22:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Reception section is fairly new; we only started adding to that recently. We'll try to find more to add there, as undoubtedly there is a ton... the question is, where to find it? BOZ (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons know? Sometime you can get ideas from looking at other articles on a similar subject and see what they used. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we've been the ones organizing the WP D&D project lately. :) But I know of other places I can ask as well... BOZ (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...such as here and here. :) Hopefully that will turn up something. BOZ (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the reception section, one thing I noticed is that a couple of commentators are mentioned by name (Marc Oxoby and Joyce Saricks), but no context is provided to explain who these people are and why their opinions are notable. Would it be worthwhile adding some brief identifying context, or is the citation information sufficient? I'm thinking of something along the lines of:

...as Marc Oxoby noted in his popular culture study The 1990s...
...for example, readers' advisory authority Joyce Saricks states...

--Muchness (talk) 08:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good idea regarding persons such as Marc Oxoby who have particular expertise or credibility, to mention that person's standing in the field. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Organizing

I was wondering something, and maybe you can help with this. Would it be better to keep the article as a rough chronological whole as it is, or should it be split up into sections detailing RPG product, novels, computer games, etc? BOZ (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ready

I think that most everything mentioned has been fixed; apologies if I missed anything! The only thing that I know hasn't been done was adding citation to The World section, since it can all be easily confirmed with the books themselves and all references would be primary. I can add them in if needed, I'm just not sure if they're needed. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Final GA review (see here for criteria)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Nice job! Congradulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 01:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It was a pleasure, once again. BOZ (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]