Jump to content

Talk:The Mansion of Happiness/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

First of all, there clearly have been significant improvements since the last GA review. Great work, and thanks for sticking with it!

Hopefully I'll make this easier by breaking my comments into little sections. Feel free to comment back within these little subsections. See below. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The second sentence reads a bit awkwardly to me. Can I suggest breaking it into two? It might read something like this: Players move around the game board's sixty-six space spiral track, which depicts various virtues and vices. Instructions on each space move players either closer to or further away from their goal of reaching the center of the board, referred to as The Mansion of Happiness. Something like that anyway.

I don't see any support in the main part of the article for the game being "initially popular". Could you find a way to back that up better? --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay

Is "gameplay" traditionally one word? It seems to make more sense as two words, "game play". I notice that the center square in this section is referred to two different ways: "the Mansion of Happiness" and "The Mansion of Happiness". It's worth being consistent here. Oh, one minor thing, it might be worth wikifying Sabbath for people who don't know the term.

This section seems a bit out of order for me. I feel like the object of the game should come first (getting to the Mansion) and then explain how to get there. I notice too that the discussion of the spaces is sort of cut up by the object of the game suddenly appearing in the text. The spaces about piety, honesty, etc. are also mentioned twice. I might suggest it mention these spaces first, then give the big quote. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Design

I think the section would look stronger as a single paragraph rather than two very short ones. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Context

What a great discussion! I'd even consider moving this up as the first section after the lead.

I'd also put in a footnote after the quote Bulls and Bears: The Great Wall St. Game promised players they would feel like "speculators, bankers, and brokers." (I'd do that for any quote.) I'd also put a footnote after any claim to be the "first" anything, as in the line the first American board game rewarding players for worldly ventures such as attending college, marrying, and getting rich.

If you do choose to put this section higher up in the article, I'd break off the section that talks about how long it was in print (i.e. through the 1920s), either as a separate section for "Critical reaction" or even under "Publication". I like how the article ends with that info, either way; it makes a good closer. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

There are places in the text where a sentence is followed by two or more citations. Typically, multiple citations are needed on potentially controversial claims (like the claim that it was the first board game in America and the game which is more deserving of that title). Other pieces of info don't need it so much. I also wonder about lines like this: The Mansion of Happiness was designed in 1843 by Anne Wales Abbott (1808-1908), the daughter of a Beverly, Massachusetts clergyman and sometime author, literary reviewer for the North American, and editor of The Child's Friend, a journal of "pure and high moral taste" for young people.[4][5][6] It's a long sentence: but do footnotes 4, 5, and 6 really support all of the sentence? Do they all say it was designed by Abbott in 1843, give her birth/death years, that she was the daughter of a clergyman, where she was from, and give that "pure and high moral taste" quote? If not, the footnote should come right after the actual information the source supports. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to put the article on hold for now and see what you think of these suggestions. Great work so far; I enjoyed reading this! --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you agreed with my suggestions! I was looking at the final paragraph and noticed that the source for it doesn't support all the information in there. I added a couple tags where I think a footnote would really help to support what you're saying. I'm wondering about some of the other sources, too. For example, the Library of Congress external link is listed right after the line that Busby also designed Authors, etc. That link doesn't seem to say that. Is the footnote only supposed to support that Busby was the designer of Mansion? If so, remember that footnotes don't have to come at the end of a sentence; it's perfectly fine to splice them right in the middle of a sentence, just make sure it's right after the info it's supporting. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More on references: I think you've thinned the references too much! Each paragraph should have at least one footnote. My concern was just sentences that ended with something like this.[1][2][3][4] Multiple footnotes are only needed when information is controversial and potentially something to dispute. By the way, I love how the reorganization works, now that Context is early in the article. One minor problem which I didn't foresee: now the discussion about dice vs. teetotum is a little disjointed (dice replace teetotums before we realize dice were a problem). Might take some creativity to make that flow better. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Updates

I love the new Legacy section. I went and heavily rearranged it so it has a different flow. If you don't like it, feel free to revert. The only problem I see is that we might need a stronger connection that Mansion of Happiness is what laid the groundwork for these types of games.

  • Glad you like it! Agree about the groundwork...Hmm, need to look. I have a quote from the Parker Bros bio that MoH was the "progenitor" of American games. I'm leaving it in the article for now but it doesn't answer the how, why, where, when, who, what, etc. Will look! ItsLassieTime (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Context seems to imply that lots of games were like this; can we support a sentence that says that the legacy of this particular game laid the groundwork for these types of games? I hope so; the early publication date might imply that it was a first?

Also, you might want to go through and make sure your web citations are uniform. Some use the "cite web" template and others don't. I also think you should restore a footnote for the second and third paragraph in the "Context" section. I think this article is improving immensely (not that it was bad to begin with).

Let me know what you think of these suggestions.

--Midnightdreary (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, another picture of this game would be a great addition. I found this, for example, from a Parker Brothers edition. If we can prove it's 19th century, the image should be public domain. Other possibilities, if you can find them, might be a picture of the teetotum, a zoom in on any representative game space, or the center square in particular. I think it would help to further illustrate the topic. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The new picture is great! Just slow down on the massive re-writes for now... I'm reviewing a different article every time I look at it and I can't keep up!

Now, the main problem with the article is that it is losing its neutrality or slight editorializing, non-encyclopedic tones (Americans were "blessed" with leisure time, "Christian virtues never raise their heads") and, most importantly, it suffers from insufficient footnotes.

It has long blocks of text, for example, with only one footnote to back it up — worse, what looks like the largest paragraph in "Context" has no source at all! You even have a quote ("luck and pluck") which has no source.

The only place I think you're safe without footnotes is "Game play" (though, even there, it's safer to have 'em).

You've also added the term pater familias, which should definitely be sourced (it's an odd term and refers only to Ancient Rome... the source might mean patriarchy?).

Your sourcing for the "Design and publication" section is perfect; that's the amount of footnoting you want to do for the "Context" section. For your benefit, I would say don't add new content now: just source what is already there. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passing

I think this article in its current format sufficiently meets the criteria for Good Article status. A couple passing concerns on the way out: as mentioned above, make sure the "Legacy" section clearly connects emerging games to the legacy of this particular board game; make sure you're not adding undue weight to the "Context" portion of the article (considering it's about this game and not this type of game; make sure your lead accurately follows the guidelines in WP:LEAD not that the article has expand about 4k since its initial nomination. Good work on this; it's great to see "Everyday life" articles pass. I hope my comments and suggestions were helpful. Let me know if you need anything else! --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Mansion_of_Happiness/GA2&oldid=288253393"