Wikipedia:Peer review/Descent into the Depths of the Earth/archive1

Descent into the Depths of the Earth

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm working to build it up to GA quality at least. I think it's only a few steps away from a GA - a bit more in the lead, a bit less of reception for sure - but anything you can think of to push it along, let me know.

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In the lead you refer to the "D" series without really explaining what the "D" series is. I assume it is the books referenced in the first paragraph but it isn't very clear and leaves the reader to speculate. Better to list the books in the "D" series and then call it what it is commonly referred to.

D&D in the plot summary, be sure to spell out abbreviations first before using them.

In the last module in the preceding series G series,

Bad prose here, two uses of the word "series" in three words. Try rewording.

Usually only link words once in the lead and once in the body of the article. Player characters is linked twice in the first two paras of the Plot section, please check throughout the article.

The description of the drow is late in the plot summary though the drow are mentioned several times before the description. Consider moving this description up to the first time the drow are mentioned.

Are the drow a proper name? Should it be capitalized? I see where it is capitalized once but not elsewhere.

There is minimal referencing in the plot section, is there more that can be added?

The entire Publication history section is full of duplicative information found either in the Plot section or within the Publication history section itself. Please read through it and look to condense and remove duplicative information. It's ok to mention the information in the Lead and then once again in the article but no more than that is necessary unless it's a very complex or long article.

Why is Queen of the Spiders bold in the Reception section? Also what is this and why is it first mentioned here?

"The series has been received with considerable praise. They were reviewed by Don Turnbull for British RPG magazine White Dwarf #11, who gave them 10/10. He compared them favorably to the G series of modules, which he also liked."

Watch tense agreement, the subject is "The series" which is singular, therefore the following sentences should refer to the series as singular rather than plural. "They were" - "It was" and "them" - "it". The sentences that follow this should also be looked at for the same fixes. If you want to say, "the series modules" then that creates a plural subject, but to keep it as "the series" it implies a singular unit, like "The Lord of the Rings" series. Does that make sense?

"Turnbull did lament that the module was designed for parties of a high level, making them difficult to use with a group of lower level characters."

Same issue here, subject - "the module" is singular there for "them" should be "it".

"He recommended using miniatures because some of the battles involved so many characters and monsters, and placing them on a grid."

This sentence is a fragment. What about placing them on a grid?

What are psionics? This isn't explained in the article and the writing assumes the readers know what this word means.

You state twice that it has received considerable praise, once generically and then a second time for its scope and scale. Consider using a different phrase or removing the second mention.

"This module was received with considerable praise for its epic scope and detail.[17] The D-Series modules were given an extensive overview review by British RPG magazine White Dwarf wherein it cautioned Dungeon Masters that running this module was unlike any they had run before.[19]"

This "paragraph" needs to be significantly expanded. The second sentence really says nothing about its epic scope and scale.

Why is Lawrence Schick linked in the references when it is a red link already linked in the article? Doesn't make a lot of sense. More to come. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 18:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about something. The article is about D1-2 but not D3, which is entitled "Vault of the Drow". Yet when I search for this Vault of the Drow I am redirected to this article. Is there a separate article named something different for D3? Or should this article be about D1-3? Please clarify for the readers.

In the references you cite Descent to the Depths of the Earth twice, is there a reason for this or can it be combined?

See WP:CITE. When citing books it's good to give page numbers for where the information is found. I hesitate to give advice on referencing only because there are so many different ways to do it, but the important thing is that you do it consistently. I see one book ref w/ a page number, #6, none elsewhere. What I do is put the author's name, year of the book and page number as the in-line citation, which then shows up in a Notes section. All other references (websites, magazines, journals, etc.) go in the Notes section as well. The References section is then reserved for the full citation of the books. See Olympic Games as an example of an FA using this format. Again it isn't what format you use that is important it is picking a format and sticking with it consistently.

• Overall you're headed in the right direction. The lead needs to include the Reception, also I would trim the Reception section. The Publication history section looks like it was written in chunks without really reading the entire section. There are multiple redundencies that need to be removed and combined. The issue with D1-2 or D1-3 needs to be addressed as this is confusing, it seems like the article should be about all three modules in the D series. Check the prose issues I mentioned above as well as some linking stuff. I fixed some of it but I think a good run through on the linking in the article is in order. Make sure you are consistent throughout the article. For example is it Drow or drow? Also you link Gygax's name several times in the references section but not every time. Look for inconsistencies in the article and try to bring uniformity to your presentation. This completes my review, if you found it helpful please consider doing a Peer Review here or participating in the GA Review process to help reduce significant backlogs. Thanks and good luck! H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 20:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from RJHall:

• The lead does not adequately summarize the body of the article; particularly the Plot and Reception sections. See WP:LEAD.
• The first instance of "drow" in the plot section is not linked, but it is linked later. I'm unclear why "Drow" is capitalized in in some places but not others. The word drow should be defined early in the Plot section, rather than waiting until the last paragraph.
• "...adventurers follows the drow into these passages to eliminate them and the threat they pose..." Eliminate the passages or the drow? Might be ambiguous for some readers.
• What's a "rogue monitor"? Please clarify.
• What's "league after league"? Is this the same as League (unit)?
• I think you need to explain "astral gate" for the non-gamers.

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)