Talk:Dragonlance/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I'll be reviewing this. Please be patient as comments are being prepared. –Whitehorse1 21:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing; thanks for taking the time to look at it. Just let me know if you have any suggestions! –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Overview of GA Review (see here for criteria)

---

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (no original research):

3. It is broad in its coverage

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   Low volume of edit activity; no edit wars apparent.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (copyright tagged and captioned): b (appropriate use; lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

The article is well-written though there are some areas to work on, to meet GA standard. I'll place the review on hold for you to take a look at these. Thanks.  –Whitehorse1 23:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well written requirement

• During the lead you refer to "Dragonlance" as "a fictional world" and then to "[t]he Dragonlance world of Krynn." The article should clearly distinguish Dragonlance as a world, or multiple worlds, Krynn as a kingdom (?), etc.
• "The concept that would become Dragonlance" This would probably be better as "The concept that became Dragonlance"
• You're really fond of passive voice; while sometimes it's necessary, it comes across as weak and hard to understand to the reader. Rewriting to use active voice often improves a sentence.
• Omit needless words. Examples: "...and Margaret Weis wrote the setting's central books, numerous other authors have contributed novels and short stories..." and "since 1995 has been released in hardcover, and some previous novels have been re-released in (or as) hardcover collectors editions"
• You have some redundant words like "Humans are Krynn's most common humanoid race, but elves, dwarves, kender, gnomes, and minotaurs also share the world."
• "The novel was a success, and within a year TSR was forced to publish more copies..." Recasting the sentence to substitute a more suitable word for 'forced' would improve this sentence. Perhaps "The success of the novel prompted TSR to publish" (or "The novel's success...").
• This part is confusing: ""TSR employee Harold Johnson suggested Hickman get additional support ... Johnson and Harold went from department to department looking for support ... After a period of months, they had the support of Hickman, Johnson..."
• "until the end of the War of the Lance and the defeat of the Dragonarmies of" Is Dragonarmies supposed to be a single word?

Images

• File:Dragonlance-Logo-Orig.png. Spelling error in the description: it's spelt "deprecated". Ditto 'Replaceable' field.
• The "1st edition Dragonlance Logo from here." link should be part of the non-free use rationale source statement. As-is, the source is very vague TSR(, Inc.), with little indication where it came from—website, press release, mailed to uploader, scanned from book cover?
• On the 2nd logo, you've said "Portion used: Very little". What does this mean? It looks like a complete logo.
  • (You could adjust the source statement on the newer logo rationale, to state the specific source you obtained it from, as you've done so for the earlier logo. It's probably not essential though.)
• On File:Dragonlance Adventures 1987 book cover.jpg, you've one image and three non-free use rationales.
  • Fixed. Do you think two logos is allowable per WP:NFCC? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmm. They are 2 different logos, not b/w or from-an-alternative-angle versions of the same logo. The assertion they're a widely-recognizable visual cue of the fantasy novel series is, on the face of it, reasonable. They seem fine to me. –Whitehorse1 09:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

References

• Reference "Dungeons & Dragons For Dummies" has "For Dummies" as the publisher field. I don't think this is the publisher; rather, it's the name of the series.
• The above title is missing an ISBN.
  • Fixed - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Thanks for the review! I'll get to work on some of these tomorrow. Do you have any ideas regarding comprehensiveness? I'm not really sure what's missing. –Drilnoth (T • C) 23:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Busy weekend coming up for me, but I'll see what I can do. BOZ (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I'm not sure if you're referring to the 'neutral' status image on the above criteria breakdown. During a review, particularly early on, I don't necessarily change individual icon statuses—except where it's immediately clear & striking a criterion is met. On a further pass of the article I am happy to re-examine for comprehensiveness, following your query, and make any related general suggestions (I've no prior exposure to the article's topic) that occur to me. Do you wish me to try to locate a subject-matter expert, Drilnoth? I can attempt to locate one, through associated WikiProjects, if you wish. –Whitehorse1 00:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, we came from the D&D project, and the Dragonlance project is pretty sleepy (though I have alerted most of its key (former?) members to the GA. A project related to novels, fantasy, or general fiction might be a good place to go to for help on comprehensiveness. None of us are particularly subject matter experts except by loose association, so if you would do that it would be very nice of you. :) BOZ (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The subject experts are pretty much involved. I would say don't worry about comprehensiveness other than what appears lacking to a layperson. There are several hundred non-notable Dragonlance articles, but I don't want to try an merge them here. Basing comprehensiveness on secondary sources, we've got it covered. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! –Whitehorse1 09:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on your use of neutral icons; I just wasn't sure quite what you meant with them. As for subject experts, it's pretty much what BOZ and Peregrine Fisher said... we are Wikipedia's current subject experts (and User:ReyBrujo, but he's pretty inactive). –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

(redent) Hey Drilnoth and BOZ, how do you want to deal with "During the lead you refer to "Dragonlance" as "a fictional world" and then to "[t]he Dragonlance world of Krynn." The article should clearly distinguish Dragonlance as a world, or multiple worlds, Krynn as a kingdom (?), etc."? It will be easy to change, but I'm not sure what to call it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

How does this look? –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"Dragonlance" is the out-of-universe name for the world as a campaign setting (which also includes things like the moons and Spelljammer's Krynnspace), while "Krynn" is the in-universe name for the world. BOZ (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that all of the concerns above have been fixed (and "dragonarmies" is supposed to be one word, from what I can tell). Anything else? –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

All of the concerns have been fixed. In particular, you've done a fantastic job copyediting! It's so much better now for someone unfamiliar with the topic reading through it. I'm happy to pass Dragonlance as a Good Article. –Whitehorse1 09:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! :) Thanks for the review. BOZ (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you very much! –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)