Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dungeons & Dragons/archive3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 16:08, 30 July 2007.
The editors of this good article have performed a commendable job of addressing all prior objections to FA status, and I believe it now meets the FA criteria. Please take a look and see if you agree. I'll try to address any issues that arise, unless somebody beats me to it. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I found only one problem, and I fixed it. One of the section headers was self referential. I just made it so it wasn't. Otherwise, it looks like a great article. Much improved over the last one. I could find no serious objections. Good job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks like a great article to me. An excellent amount of references and good footnoting throughtout! Well done, editors! My only comment would be the Lead, I was told the Lead should be the summary of the article and not contain any references, footnotes, etc...that these should be in the body of the article.Mike Searson 23:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixes needed - why not put related products section as subsection under miniature figures (or combine into one called accessories) - as it is it isa stubby section all by itself and overlaps with those to subsections...and its very stubby. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I'm not a fan of the See Also section - Character classes and creature lists should be mentioned in the currently very brief paragraph where the 3 core rulebooks are mentioned. (that para is too small as is anyway). You could put the list of iconic characters in this paragraph too and then delete the superfluous see also section. occasionally there is a need for the section bu this isn't one of those times. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- After thinking about this I'm not sure I agree. The "Related products" section meets the Wikipedia:Summary style requirement, so the brevity is appropriate. The "See also" section has plenty of precedent, and there is no specific requirement for removal of such a section. Class is already linked in the article, but I agree there may be a need to discuss and link the term "monster". On the whole, however, I think that making these changes would only be addressing your personal style preferences, which appear to differ from the majority. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The second paragraph needs something about the fact that it's usually played by a group of people sitting around a table listening to descriptions of their perceptions, knowledge, and choices from the DM and describing their actions in response. Otherwise, there's nothing in the intro to allow unfamiliar people to visualize how it goes. Even the game play mechanics section seems to leave those details assumed. BenB4 08:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point Ben -I'll second that. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I attempted to address this concern. — RJH (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: The use of Image:Players hndbk v35 cover.jpg (fair use, copyrighted image) is replaceable by an image a Wikipedian could take of all three books photographed together. The use here of this copyrighted imagery is therefore unnecessary, and fails WP:NFCC #1. Further, Image:S3ModuleCover.jpg has an invalid fair use rationale in which it indicates "illustrates a relevant point in the text of the article", yet this module is not discussed in the article. Thus, the use here is decorative and fails fair use criteria. --Durin 21:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: Image:Players hndbk v35 cover.jpg: How is photograph of the three core books together fair use, but a single book isn't? I think it's a good idea because it would be a better illustration (I'll see about taking such a photograph myself soon), but I don't know how it's better from a fair use standpoint. Presumably for purposes of identification and illustration you'll want a clear and complete image of at least one of the books (I'm picturing a fan of the three books with one on top). The book with the clear image would contain the same image as an image of the book by itself. That the cover would be surrounded by other imagery doesn't seem to change the core copyright concerns. Re: Image:S3ModuleCover.jpg: it's representative of a module. "Here's what a typical module looks like" seems like reasonable fair use, in much the same way that the image of a bunch of miniatures is, or the use of the first book's cover in Harry Potter. It's not decorative, it's representative. It's not realistically possible to describe what a module, a very common part of the D&D experience, looks like without an illustration. If my reasoning in incorrect, could you explain why so that I can make better fair use decisions when I contribute imagery to Wikipedia in the future? — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While technically a photo of the three books together still carries copyright burdens from the original authors, the marketability infringement of such an image is so reduced as to make claims essentially moot. It is similar to photographing a scene with a McDonald's restaurant in it. It very definitely pushes such a work more into the grey area. Yeah I was thinking of a fan of the three books, or alternatively standing up the three books kind of like a three-way mirror in a clothing store. As to the module image, simple depiction is pretty weak. It's far better to actually discuss the module. If there's no need to discuss the module, there's not much need to have the image. --Durin 12:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I agree with your arguments, but I'll see what I can come up with for alternative illustrations. — RJH (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Just taking a photograph of the 3 books together, and considering its use is just to show the 3 books, it's a derivative work and still fair use. It doesn't reduce the amount of fair use on Wikipedia either, as it's just like scanning all three works into one image. It'd also be less useful. - hahnchen 20:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I agree with your arguments, but I'll see what I can come up with for alternative illustrations. — RJH (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While technically a photo of the three books together still carries copyright burdens from the original authors, the marketability infringement of such an image is so reduced as to make claims essentially moot. It is similar to photographing a scene with a McDonald's restaurant in it. It very definitely pushes such a work more into the grey area. Yeah I was thinking of a fan of the three books, or alternatively standing up the three books kind of like a three-way mirror in a clothing store. As to the module image, simple depiction is pretty weak. It's far better to actually discuss the module. If there's no need to discuss the module, there's not much need to have the image. --Durin 12:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Image:Players hndbk v35 cover.jpg image has been replaced by an image from the commons. Image:S3ModuleCover.jpg has been commented out in lieu of a more suitable image. Would a fanned image of a module cover and its contents serve? — RJH (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This user declined to repond, despite two requests to do so. For future reference I'll assume this issue has been satisfactorily addressed. — RJH (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: Image:Players hndbk v35 cover.jpg: How is photograph of the three core books together fair use, but a single book isn't? I think it's a good idea because it would be a better illustration (I'll see about taking such a photograph myself soon), but I don't know how it's better from a fair use standpoint. Presumably for purposes of identification and illustration you'll want a clear and complete image of at least one of the books (I'm picturing a fan of the three books with one on top). The book with the clear image would contain the same image as an image of the book by itself. That the cover would be surrounded by other imagery doesn't seem to change the core copyright concerns. Re: Image:S3ModuleCover.jpg: it's representative of a module. "Here's what a typical module looks like" seems like reasonable fair use, in much the same way that the image of a bunch of miniatures is, or the use of the first book's cover in Harry Potter. It's not decorative, it's representative. It's not realistically possible to describe what a module, a very common part of the D&D experience, looks like without an illustration. If my reasoning in incorrect, could you explain why so that I can make better fair use decisions when I contribute imagery to Wikipedia in the future? — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object. Some short paras could benefit from mergers. But my primary objection is that I'd like to see more academic studies cited: Gary Alan Fine's Shared Fantasy is a classic that I'd expect to see, but there are others - yet as far as I can tell all of article's citations come from publications by developers or fans, with a few newspaper articles thrown in.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the feedback. This isn't something that can be remedied in the time frame of the FAC, so I'll take a pass on further attempts to address concerns. — RJH (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I recall commenting on this last time around. There are two sentencing describing the awards that this game received. I would like to see a little more critical acclaim. Axl 20:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have some specific suggestions? Origins seems to be the highest award in the industry. I'm not sure whether EnWorld awards could be considered all that notable. Awards for D&D-related computer games don't seem applicable. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm hoping to see a couple of quotes from gaming magazines such as White Dwarf or Roleplayer. Thanks. Axl 19:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unclear what such quotes would have to do with the article being FA or not. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Durin, several paragraphs go un-cited. Some adjectives could be removed "An elaborate example of a D&D game...". Note:I Reviewed this article for GAN and failed it instead of putting it on hold, It was my 1st time... -FlubecaTalk 02:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding "elaborate example", I assume you're dismissing "elaborate" as a removable adjective. Given that the photograph is exceptionally and unusually elaborate, it seems an important adjective lest we mislead readers into believing that is a typical example. — Alan De Smet | Talk 04:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.