|
Infoboxes
- fair-use rationales seem fine (though I wonder what the "What?" is for in the last upload of File:UnearthedOld.jpg)
- extra "ISBN" added in ISBN line of the new edition infobox is obsolete
- does the new book have either Dewey Decimal or Library of Congress Classification?
-
- One could probably try to find out, seems like an archive method used like authority control. AGF for now. Hekerui (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
- why the "however" in "However, the book was ...", I can't see a contrast established
- "rather negatively" is vague (just "negatively" is just as good imo after reading the reception description, or not?)
- the press "felt"? is there a formulation like this in a RS or isn't otherwise perhaps "believed" or something else better?
- perhaps add "game publishing company" before TSR, for people who can't tell/don't know this is a publisher and don't want to check out the other article
- question/suggestion: "contents" is perhaps ambiguous with the summary at the beginning of the book so just "content" would work too, or not? (I haven't heard "a book's contents" when the mere content is meant but perhaps I'm ignorant, the formulation might be just fine)
- "any of the original book's contents" - "any of" redundant
- perhaps a mention of the reception of the 3rd edition book should be added to the lead since one is given for the AD&D version
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons
Development history
- the section title doesn't address the book, perhaps "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons edition" or "... version", or not?
- Since the book didn't have a 2nd edition analogue, I made 2E a subheading of "Advanced D&D", since the preceding subsections deal with the 1E AD&D version, and thus it all pretty much fits under "AD&D". Ideas? BOZ (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant that the title of the section "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" doesn't say anything about the book - in the infoboxes it instead says "Unearthed Arcana, 1st edition" when the 1st edition is discussed, here it just says the D&D edition. If you think that's clear enough you can keep it though. Hekerui (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Headings aren't supposed to mention the article topic by name, so I figure it's good to leave as-is. BOZ (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant "1st edition" or "1st edition book" or similar, but looking at it again it's probably fine. Hekerui (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the FAQ archive cite doesn't work and the link doesn't look like a webcitation archive (why the query thing instead of the normal code?), but webcitation works again and the page should be archived properly
-
- Added a webcitation. Hekerui (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- what does the "major" in "major contributions by ..." mean? does the sentence mean something different or not with the word omitted?
- the Pen & Paper source is just for basic info about the book, why not cite the book itself for that - I have looked at the book and the info is there (with Grubb and Mohan being allowed introductory comments), except that Grubb is listed in the end credits as design consultant along with Frank Mentzer and Mohan is listed as responsible for editing and typography - perhaps that could be stated more explicity, thoughts?
- the believermag cite should be treated like the FAQ cite
-
- Done. Hekerui (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the first mention Dragon should have "magazine" or someting affixed so people know what this is
- the wikilinks in the quotation "an interim volume to expand ..." need to go via MOS:QUOTE or the sentence must be reformulated without quotation
- the mention of the release date as "summer" and the quote are on page 9 of Dragon #95, I suggest giving the cite the page range 8-10
- when the first mention of Dragon has "magazine" added it can be removed in the next instant that follows two sentences later, and the next mention can also be delinked
- "published in Imagine magazine as well" - "as well" redundant
- "a number of errors" - just "errors" says the same
- "Even some positive reviews ..." - "some" redundant
- "many errors" - "many" redundant, scope already discussed
- "errata was" -> "errata were" since it's plural of erratum
Contents
- "This 128-page book ..." - perhaps "The 128-page book ..." since the sentence doesn't relate to another sentence mentioning UA
- "..- with the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons first edition rules," - I'm not sure the comma is needed (or correct?) there
- perhaps explain Dungeon Master in parentheses as "game organizer" - the "one for players and one for Dungeon Masters" doesn't need to be put into parentheses imo and can be added to the sentence with a comma
- "... details on using various 'subraces' ..." - "various" redundant
- "for use as both player characters and non-player characters" - "both" is redundant
- I can't see how the link to subspecies enhances reader understanding since the destination is not DnD-related (notwithstanding the review comment from the first GAN)
- "demi-human level maximums" is difficult to understand for readers with little know-how, perhaps add an explanation in parentheses?
- "fighter" needs delinking per MOS:QUOTE
- "as well" redundant
- first mention of "spells", perhaps link to Magic of Dungeons & Dragons as done in the reception section
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition
- perhaps give little explanations for certain terms for readers not too familar with jargon, like with "hit die" and "skills" (that one could do with an example I think)
- "did not include some material" is an unclear formulation and the rest sentence is kind of oblique as well
- Unfortunately, that part came from a source that I don't have access to, so I'm not sure what I can do with that (the line originall read "AD&D 2nd edition removed material from the original Players Handbook as well as much of the new material that appeared in Unearthed Arcana, which was considered to be "unbalanced" by the AD&D 2nd Edition's designers." before I messed with it)
- Please rewrite the sentence, a phrasing closer to the original one makes more sense imo, no? Hekerui (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea what the original source (Polyhedron) actually said, but I could (in theory) assume that the original editor who added what I pasted above was sticking closely to the source. So, I'll just stick closer to that editor's interpretation. :) BOZ (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- abbreviations like "AD&D" need to be introduced (even if they appear very obvious) - perhaps put a parentheses with "AD&D" behind the first appearance of "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons"?
- "with the last printing being two years after" - "being" confuses imo, the word could be omitted or replaced by "published"
- "DMs" was not introduced as an abbreviation
- what does "baseline" mean (is it mean as "basic structure"? perhaps I'm ignorant that this is a usage)
- "In fact, the volume of options ..." - "In fact" is redundant
- "'Drink from the fire hose', or only use ..." - comma necessary?
- perhaps add a page number for the "fire hose" quotation
-
- It's two cites so either add both page numbers or make a new cite for the second instance and add a page number for both. Hekerui (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- somehow I can't find "only use a few of the numerous variants" more specifically in the source - if it's a summary, what part is used?
- Another item not originally added by me. :) I think I looked for that myself and couldn't find it, so gave up and left it as is. I'll try to fix that later. BOZ (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can't find how that is sourced it should be deleted. Hekerui (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
- own bias: I don't like "critical" used as synonym for negative since I've had to heard hundred of times in school that a critique can have positive and negative parts, but it's perhaps permissable since my dictionary (misused as a thesaurus) also translates it to "questionable"
- there's another instance of "felt" - I've said that I find that suspect, but one might keep it provided I'm wrong with my crabbing
- "... extension to the number of character races ..." - is it not "extension of the number of", and since "number of" is redundant, perhaps "extension of character races"?
- "paladin" and "thief" should be delinked per MOS:QUOTE
- perhaps a very short explanation or link to Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons) for the alignment mention
- "... very little in the suggested rules ..." - "very" is redundant
- not sure the external link to the William B. Haddon reviews in the external links is necessary since one can click from the review and the author part would normally link to a Wiki article, but that's negligible
Additional reading
- what is this for and who added this? is this another review, but without page number etc.? I personally think that reviews that were not accessed by anone (as it seems to be the case here) need not be included
-
- Agreed, moved it to talk page. Hekerui (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Last review
|
b (MoS): 
