Wikipedia:Peer review/Dragons of Autumn Twilight/archive1

Dragons of Autumn Twilight[edit]

I did some work on the article a while back and got it to B-Class, but I'd really like to move it up hopefully to GA. I'd basically enjoy any and all comments on general improvements to get it to GA status, and in addition it would be very helpful if you could describe the coherence of the plot summary from the perspective of one unfamiliar with the topic. Thank you! Dooms Day349 03:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 21:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks decent. Some of the paragraphs are rather long and could use some splits. I was hoping to find something in this article about the book's influence on TSR's fantasy fiction publishing business. Also any sort of critical review information would be good as well. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor[edit]

It's getting towards GA-class, but needs a fair bit of work. My thoughts:

The lead is a little short, and shouldn't include a one-sentence paragraph. Expand and summarise the article.
The individual title meaning may be a reference... - needs a cite to avoid being original research
Even worse - POV statement
The plot synopsis is alright, but a bit heavy on jargon and names (I've never read this). Could it be trimmed into a more succinct summary, focusing on only the key characters and events. It also chagnes between very long paragraphs and one-sentence ones - try to keep their lengths approximately equal.
Importance to Dragonlance should go above the release dates, to keep the prose together
Trivia sections should be incorporated into the text preferably, but this one contains mostly the same type of trivia, so perhaps it could be renamed
If there are any professional reviews, they could be put in a new section

As I said, it's alright but a bit unbalanced at present. If you haven't already, you may want to read WP:WAF. Trebor 16:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I'll take it into account and fix it up later tonight or tomorrow. I'll have to dig up a reference for the title meaning...hm. Everything else seems pretty easy to fix, except professional reviews; they're quite hard to find for this topic. Dooms Day349 21:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine; I was suggesting it in case it had been overlooked. You can only make the article as good as sources permit (obviously). Trebor 21:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I haven't gotten to these, I've been busy the lat few days. Maybe this weekend, if I can. Dooms Day349 02:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worry, I'm not in any rush :) Trebor 07:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good; Neither am I :) It's taking me some time to get to this..hopefully, I'll have a snow day tomorrow (yay Chardon) so I might get to it. If not, weekend. Dooms Day349 00:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]