Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ravenloft (module)/archive1

Add links
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 by User:SandyGeorgia 01:57, 17 December 2008 [1].

Ravenloft (D&D module)[edit]

Nominator(s): Drilnoth (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been a Good Article since March 2007, and I think that significant improvements have been made since then that qualifies it for FA status. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - All of the images in this article are non-free and none of them have sufficient rationales at this point.

  • Image:Ravenloft I6.jpg - The fair use rationale for this image states that it "illustrates a relevant point in the text of the article". The rationale should state what that specific point is.
  • Image:House of Strahd lr.JPG - The fair use rationale for this image states that it "illustrates a relevant point in the text of the article". The rationale should state what that specific point is.
  • Image:Ravenloft Silver lr.JPG - The fair use rationale for this image states that it "illustrates a relevant point in the text of the article". The rationale should state what that specific point is.
  • Image:Expedtion Ravenloft Cover.jpg - "to illustrate the book in question" is not a sufficient fair use rationale - According to Wikipedia's policy, fair use images must be used for something beyond illustration. That is, they have to contribute "significantly" to the reader's understanding of the subject (WP:NFCC #8). This description is also missing the name of the copyright holder and a good description of what the image is.
  • I don't actually think we need to see this book cover to understand what the article is saying - there is a new version of this part of the game. Do you have any more information on the art? Is there a reason we need to differentiate this artwork from the previous edition? Awadewit (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed that the image isn't needed. I think that it is beneficial, however, because the two books are actually quite different (based on what I've read about them; I don't actually own either). The original module is shorter and for a very different edition of the game (1st edition, rather than v3.5). Images for the silver anniversary and House of Strahd mostly illustrated reprints of the original which didn't have many major modifications from the original, as opposed to Expedition which has a lot of modifications, additions, and updates. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed that image from the article and added in a new one, Image:Expedition to Castle Ravenloft map.jpg, in its place. The new image more directly relates to the article. I think that the fair-use rationale I put on it should be sufficient, but you might want to take a look just to be sure. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This rationale is a bit on the weak side (3-D is pretty self-explanatory). Is there anything else that could be added to strengthen the rationale for having this particular map, for example? Awadewit (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are actually very few D&D maps which are rendered in 3D, and I thought that between that and the point mentioned in the article the rationale would be good enough. There isn't a specific reason why this map was chosen; there was a selection of three different 3D maps in Wizards of the Coast's online map gallery, so I just chose the one that I thought would look best in the article. I had decided that a map might be good enough based on Ragesoss's statement below, but if it isn't it can be removed. Is there anything else that could be done to make this image acceptable? -Drilnoth (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I don't think we need an image to illustrate what the article is saying - there is a sequel to this game. Do you have any more information on the art? Is there a reason we need to differentiate this artwork from the previous edition? Awadewit (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't really matter to me whether this image is in the article or not. I think that the main reason it is is because it was merged with the rest of the Ravenloft II: House on Gryphon Hill article (which is also why it had the completely incorrect fair-use statement). -Drilnoth (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest this image be removed, then. Awadewit (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Each and every one of these fair use rationales has to make a specific case for each image. See this dispatch on non-free images for help on writing fair use justifications. Many of these covers seem very similar, so I'm not sure how necessary they all are. We usually only include one book cover in articles about pieces of literature. If you want to include more than one, the article is going to have to discuss the cover itself - that is, it will have to contain critical commentary on the cover which must be accompanied by the image in order to be understood. Awadewit (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. In the first sentence, this seems totally out of place: "coded with the alpha numeric designation I6". The article does not make clear why that is even relevant to the article (any more than, say, an ISBN), much less why it's significant enough to be in the first sentence.--ragesoss (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will go through and update the fair-use rationales. The reason for the number if images is because each image is of a different book; if needed, I could see the removal of Image:House of Strahd lr.JPG and Image:Ravenloft Silver lr.JPG, as they are mostly just revised versions of the main topic book, but the other three all represent very distinctly different books. As I said, I'll work on the fair-use tags and rationales and notify you when I'm done.
I'll also either move the module code or put it in more context. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take care of the alpha numeric code; I added it, so it's on me to fix it. ;) I'll move it out of the lead, for one thing. BOZ (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Another) comment. The prose needs a careful copy-edit. One thing that jumps out is the inconsistency with tense. It would be helpful, I think, to mention in the footnote for it being the 2nd best module what the one that beat it was. I agree that the two images you point out as possible candidates for removal should be removed. One image that would be more useful than any of the current ones would be one of the map, since the text specifically mentions it as significant (as opposed to the cover art).--ragesoss (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Took care of the "only one better". Any other specific items need fixing while I'm attentive? :) BOZ (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have removed the two extraneous images and tagged them with {{orfud}}. I am still working on fair-use updates for the other images, and then I'll get to work on the prose. Good idea regarding the map; I'll see what I can do. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I admit that I'm not an expert at Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, so I might be completely wrong about this. The {{Non-free book cover}} template says that "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of book covers to illustrate an article discussing the book in question qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." If WP:NFCC takes precedence over that template, shouldn't the templates text be modified to make that more clear? I had been under the impression that use for simple illustration was significant fair-use because of the template's text. My apologies for any trouble this may have caused. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NFCC does take precedence - the template even states this. It says "please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, as well as the source of the work and copyright information". It then links you to Wikipedia's guidelines regarding non-free images, which are a bit complex. Awadewit (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that I've mostly taken care of the tense; I tried to put everything about a module's plot or the design of the books themselves in present-tense, while information about the creation of the modules and world in past-tense. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; I think I've sufficiently update the fair-use rationale for Image:Ravenloft I6.jpg. I've done what I can to update the others; I think that it would be a real shame to see them go, but if they must, they must. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • I'd say that it's reliable because it is a review of the book by the executive chairman of a pretty large role-playing game fansite. If it was just "any member" I'd say it wasn't reliable but I think that its use is justified because of who wrote it. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it was just being used as a review, I wouldn't question it, however, it's being used as more than just a review. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will look into the reliability of the source further. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually just removed all instance of said source that were used to describe the contents of a module without reviewing said contents, so that should be fine for this reference. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion going on about whether or not this source is reliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#d20zines. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that The Acaeum is a pretty trusted source for information on 1st edition game materials. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will look into the reliability of the source further. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I ran this Google search to find sources regarding why The Acaeum is reliable. It looks like there are quite a few mentions of it in reliable locations (I am aware of Wikipedia's "Google Search" guidelines; many of the sources that come up are unreliable, but there are some good ones in there, too). -Drilnoth (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a question about this source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#d20zines. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 7 is just a link, needs a publisher and last access date at the very least.
  • Current ref 10 needs a last access date and publisher for the link.
  • What makes http://www.enworld.org/forum/rpg-book-reviews/245785-expedition-castle-ravenloft.html?ltr=E a reliable source for "Expedition to Castle Ravenloft was the first of a series of adventures looking back at the early days of the game, updating and expanding early modules into much larger works using the 3rd edition game rules..."
It's a long review of the book. There were a number of links listed as references which didn't actually link to any text in the article, and I was trying to fix that last night. This was one of the last ones I looked at, it was long, I was getting tired, and I jumped at the first thing I saw. :) I'll try to find some way to fix that; the statement can probably be backed up with a more reliable source, and the review could probably be used to source other information in the article. BOZ (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did remove that ref because it was both on a messageboard and by a relatively unknown person, so if you want to restore it you'll need to look through the article history. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're thinking of the Wizards' message board post (which I agree with removing); this is an ENWorld book review by a guy who's written dozens of very thorough reviews for them. BOZ (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops; my bad. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I used the ENWorld review as a source for about as much as it could be used. I tried to find a source for the "first part of the Expedition series" as I would like to keep that line, but haven't had any luck so far. Will remove it if it can't be sourced. BOZ (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added an appropriate reference. It's from a primary source, but it still provides a citation. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • current ref 32 (Lawrence Schick...) should be last name first and needs a page number
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into the online links, but I don't have the book by Schick. -15:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Drilnoth (talk)
All links have been updated or removed as requested, with discussion on reliability of d20zines and The Acaeum above. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Page # added to Schick reference. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • "5-7" in the infobox should have an en dash.
  • Because of this fog no one, except a few gypsies who have a potion to cancel the fog's effects, have left Barovia for centuries. - Should "have" be changed to "has"?
  • A very memorable villain, Count Strahd von Zarovich has become one of the most infamous villains in Dungeons & Dragons history. - No need for "very".
  • While still credited to the Hickmans and based on their original work, Bruce Nesmith designed this module without help from them - "Without help from them" → "without their help".
  • While the layout has been redone, much of the original text and artwork is reused, with additional art by James Crabtree, and a new cover by Dana M. Knutson. - The comma after "Crabtree" is unneeded.
  • The module is recommended for character levels 6-13, with the main revised version for characters level 11-13, but also the option to play more like the original with the slightly revised level recommendation of 6-8. - Needs en dashes.
  • This version contradicts itself as to what level of play it is intended for; the back cover indicates that it is appropriate for character levels 5-7 like the original module, but the introduction text indicates the module is for levels 11-13 as in House of Strahd. - Again.
  • The maps for Castle Ravenloft were rendered in 3-D orthogonal effect, like in the original Ravenloft adventure. - "Like" → "similar to".
  • Is the Video games section really needed for one sentence?

The article looks good, but an overall copyedit is needed. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Disagree with "gypsies has" over "gypsies have". Will consider what to do with the video game sentence; maybe increase, maybe fold in somewhere, maybe kill it. Handled the rest. :) BOZ (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Currently, that sentence reads "no one have", so I still believe "no one has" would be better. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, LOL, I was looking at the other "have" - corrected. :) BOZ (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - refs need to come at the end of sentences. See sentence 3 under Ravenloft II: House on Gryphon Hill, which I would also split into two by changing each of whom on their own section to Each writer worked on their own section.... MOre later, I need to sleep here.
It would be good if there was more info on it being the first horror-influenced RPG, did it predate Chill? Although CoC had come out sometime before maybe (???)
Watch for unnecessary repetition of words in prose. I'll check in later Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that the reason for having the citations in the middle of the sentence is because they only support the statement in the first part. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs, pls check the dabs identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I hadn't even noticed the toolbox! Has it been there all along? I'll fix the one item mentioned there. BOZ (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyediting. In my defense, I'm not as picky as that first edit makes me look :) It's a DASH judgment call. (And btw, I'm not sure how long our current DASH rules are going to last. We'll see.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Oops, so much for copyediting, there's a problem. Every reference (now, at least) [added: in the References section] is either from the Hickmans (who wrote the module) or by TSR (which was purchased by Wizards of the Coast in 1997) or Wizards of the Coast (which owns the rights). You should be able to find third-party references for a popular module, published and re-published many times over 25 years. On the other hand, I was enjoying reading the article until I noticed that, so I hope you'll get to work! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean? The following citations are reliable secondary sources, not from the Hickmans, TSR, or Wizards (as of this revision: 5, 6, 12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 27, 30, 31, and 34. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! I saw a bunch of Harvard references, so I dropped down to the References section, without noticing that you had another style of referencing mixed in. The lead says "Ravenloft is considered by many to be one of the finest Dungeons & Dragons modules ever published, and is often considered a classic among gamers." I've looked at all the sentences that have citations in your list (5, 6, etc, but I'm looking at the current version of the page, if that matters), and none of those sentences supports that conclusion; that conclusion seems to be supported only by the Hickmans, TSR and WotC. Is that conclusion in one of the other sources? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at things regarding that ref. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if you look at the current page or the historical version; I just provided the link for anyone in the future looking back at the article so they could see what it had looked like. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it looks like the first part of that sentence is cited from a primary source; the second part of the sentence is cited from this review, which I hadn't put on the above list of sources. The sentence "is often considered a classic among gamers." is supported by that article's first paragraph. The first part of the sentence, as I said, is just from a primary source; if you think it is a poor reference for the line, the statement could be removed. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what Winter's reputation is; if he's uninvolved with WotC, and also one of those rare guys who would be considered such an "expert" at RSN that they'd take what he writes even if it's in a blog, then maybe it's okay, but the fact that it's published by the same people who are trying to sell us the new version of the module means you should probably strike that part of the sentence. For the other half ... I'm really not an RSN guy, I'll leave that up to people who do a lot of reference-checking. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll take that part out. Additionally, I'll see what can be done about making all of the refs into inline citations to avoid confusion in the future. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I changed all the refs into inline citations, and I took Dank55's advice and removed the one sentence. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also consider the White Dwarf review to be an independent reliable source, at the very least. BOZ (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I'd marked all of the White Dwarf citations in my list. Ah, well. Also, since I just did a lot of moving, combining, etc. with refs, that list is pretty much completely wrong now; for checking what refs I'm referring to, you'll have to look at the oldid. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may have, I was just pointing out that we have at least one reliable non-primary source. :) BOZ (talk) 06:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—The article is decently developed and readable, but I have a few issues that I'd like to see be addressed:

  • The article does not clarify the goal of the players. Is there a plot summary that could be incorporated? All I can pick up is that the party is stuck in Barovia, Strahd is the key to leaving and he is difficult to slay. So is it a mystery where the party must find the means to kill him before they can leave?
  • What does "Strahd is notable for his then-innovative combination of monster and character" mean? I'm not sure is make senses to me, so I don't why a non-gamer would understand it.
    • I attempted to address this.—RJH (talk)
  • Per WP:Jargon, the article needs to explain "characters level", "dungeon style adventure", "high-level" and "demiplane" for non-gamers. Also "railroads" might be unclear as it is gamer slang.
    • The "high-level" is in reference to "Jeren Sureblade, a high-level paladin". I think it should either clarify his level or say something like "veteran paladin". (According to this he is 15th level, but i couldn't find a solid ref. Most sites just say he was a paladin without the adjective.)—RJH (talk)
      • Gotcha; I removed the "high-level" part. It really doesn't seem necessary. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the article please explain why this matters: "The module was reviewed by Carl Sargent in issue #87 (March 1987) of White Dwarf magazine." Did he have anything pertinent to say?
  • Please reference Margaret Carter's discussion of Strahd to provide more detail.
  • The statement "stripping the demiplane setting of the Ravenloft campaign from the setting" is unclear, possibly due to ambiguity and the duplicate use of "setting". Please clarify in the article. Fixed.

Sorry but I can not lend support yet.—RJH (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "Jargon" point. I've linked "character levels" and "dungeon style adventure" so that they can be looked up easily, and I added clarification to "railroads". In my brief scan for the words you mentioned, I didn't see "high-level," and the only instance of "demiplane" that I noticed is linked. I'll work on your other suggesstions shortly. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the Margaret Carter citation is done (good work finding that, by the way). I can't really say much about the White Dwarf issue; I don't have it, and I don't think that BOZ does either, although we could check with other editors. I can't really clarify what the PCs goal is; I don't own the module myself. The "Strahd is notable for his then-innovative combination of monster and character" line seems pretty clear to me, but it could be removed if it is too confusing and can't really be repaired. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't own a single issue of White Dwarf, unfortunately; for that we have to depend on those who do, particularly our UK contributors. Same here on owning a copy of the actual module, although it may be possible to locate one if I am dilligent enough (no promises here). BOZ (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does this help?—RJH (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, but I think that there really isn't enough there to help say what was in the review. It would also be a transcription, and not entirely reliable. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. In that case I'd like to suggest starting a separate "Notes" section and making that a note, along with the other notes appearing among the references. This can be readily accomplished by means of the group= option described here. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually just saw someone mention that they had a lot of White Dwarf back issues, and I've asked him to see if he can expand the information regarding the review. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the "monster-character" description intended to refer to older editions of D&D where only certain races could take class levels? I.e. Strahd has class levels despite being a monster that normally couldn't assume classes. If so, perhaps this could be explained for the reader. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't write that line (nor most of the article), but I suspect that's what it means. BOZ (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: So here's the work that still needs to be done. Please let me know if I missed anything; I'll start actually working on cleaning these things up today or tomorrow.

  1. File:Expedition to Castle Ravenloft map.jpg might need a better rationale or removal. Image removed.
  2. Check reliability of [2].Comment above by User:Ealdgyth says that "If it was just being used as a review, I wouldn't question it, however, it's being used as more than just a review." At this point, it is being used entirely to cite information that I think counts as being used as a review, but correct me if I'm wrong.
  3. Check reliability of [3]. I know that it would be a primary source, but [4] and [5] would lead me to believe it is fairly reliable. The site seems to also have turned up some positive reviews here, although it's a messageboard. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ref in sentence three of Ravenloft II: The House on Gryphon Hill should be at end of sentence.
  5. Copyedit.
  6. Clarify the goal of the players.Per this comment on my talk page, it seems as if the module does not specifically explain the player's goal. That said, since it can easily be presumed, should it be added in anyway? Or would that be too much OR?
  7. Explain "demiplane" for non-gamers.
  8. Clariy the "monster-character" line.

-Drilnoth (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Anything else that needs work? -Drilnoth (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ravenloft_(module)/archive1&oldid=1078805258"