Talk:Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 5
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Alan De Smet in topic Featured Article Criteria Checklist & Comment Space
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 9 |
Featured Article Criteria Checklist & Comment Space
Based on my suggestion above, point (2), that the Featured article criteria should be carefully examined and discussed on this page, I have put together a structure based on the criteria. I have pulled these headings and comments direct from Featured Article Criteria, please add any comments about how they related to the article under each, signing them as normal. I envisage that this setion will act as a structured checklist to make sure all aspects of bringing this article to featured article standard are properly considered and addressed. - Waza 10:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I thought it would be helpful for comparison to look at similar type articles that have achieved featured status. There are no RPG's with featured status, but there are a few board and card games we may look at to get ideas of what can be done to this article. Featured Articles about games are Monopoly (game), History of the board game Monopoly, Chess and Blackjack. Game articles that are former featured articles include games articles Go (board game) and Poker, while these are now below the standard for a featured article, the old featured version can be looked at. Of course it is useful to look at any featured articles for inspiration, not just games related ones. - Waza 04:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is a text listing of the criteria to be crossed out as each is met as per the discussion below. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes:
- It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
- (a) ????"Well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant.????
- (b)
"Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details. - (c)
"Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations (see verifiability and reliable sources); this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations. See citing sources for information on when and how extensively references are provided and for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. - (d)
"Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias (see neutral point of view); however, articles need not give minority views equal coverage (see undue weight). - (e)
"Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day; vandalism reverts and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.
It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects, including:- (a)
a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections; - (b)
a proper system of hierarchical headings; and - (c)
a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help).
- (a)
It should have images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. If fair use images are used, they must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labeled accordingly.It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- As I have done my best but fell I am unable to make a judgement on criteria 1(a) I have decided to nominate the article and let the community decide. Please go and support the article if you think it is ready, or fix it if it is not. - Waza 04:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable
Well written
means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant.
- Is this article well written? I fell I have worked too much too closely on this article to even have an opinion. As all other criteria for featured articles I believe (As per this checklist) been met I am inclinded just to nominate this article and see what the featureed article reviewers have to say. Does anyone else have any opinions? - Waza 02:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Comprehensive
means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.
- Criteria Met This is one criteria I believe is clearly shown to be met. The basic sections of the article have not been added to for some time despite much work beinfg done by a number of editors. Length restraints must be balanced against this criteria and this balance is being held with other articles refered to to expand sections with more details. No recent suggestion have been made for new information that is agreed upon, most are refered to relevant detail article. - Waza 11:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Factually accurate
means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations (see verifiability and reliable sources); this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations. See citing sources for information on when and how extensively references are provided and for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.
- This is one area that may need some work. References and note citations are correctly formatted and the article is factual. However while the number of citations has greatly improved, there could be more still to show that the article is factual and not original research. While some suggest "One citation for each sentence!", this may be overkill, but then again it won't hurt. We need to identify everything that could be questioned and apply reference notes. If you see something in the article that could be questioned please add a note! If you see something that needs one but you can't find a relevant reference then please add a Template:Citation needed into the article at the appropriate point. Then when we see this[citation needed] others what we need to look for. - Waza 01:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have been unable to find a reference to cite for:
I know it is true because I have seen and heard it so many times. From my mother who wold call it "playing D&D" no matter if we were playing Traveller, Gamma World, Car Wars or even other games as diverse as Kingmaker. To it's use in acronyms like BADD - Bothered About Dungeons and Dragons who was opposed to all RPG's. And even from gamers themselves who don't want to explain to non gamers that there are RPG's other than D&D. However original research does not count on Wikipedia, and I have not been able to find an actual reference for this statement. Unless someone else can find a suitable reference I think we need to remove this statement. - Waza 01:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Outside of the gaming community, D&D has become a metonym used to refer to roleplaying games in general.
- I have removed all the citations needed I marked several weeks ago as questionable material by either finding a citatin or deleting material in question where I could not find a reference to support it (please only read this material if you also add an appropriate citation) This may be enough to meet this criteria, I believe there is nothing that is questionable that is not covered by a citation or in the general references. It is probably still a good idea to add more citations, most of the remaining needs should be enough to be a footnote refering to appropriate page or section of an existing general reference. - Waza 11:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- More than doubled the amount of inline citations in the past week. Most additions refer to specific pages of items already listed in References section. But we still need more. Atleast one per paragraph, one per line is not too many. You may note my citations tend to go to a selection of the references that I have easy access to. PLease help by adding more citations, particularly to those I have not used much (Like very original brown/white box, Holmes' blue box, 2nd edition AD&D and D&D v3.0) - Waza 02:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- While more citations cannot hurt there are now many times the number than when I started this section. Several unsourced statement have been modified or deleted. I feel this is now criteria met - Waza 06:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Point of fact: Dave Arneson (co-creator of D&D) disputes that the rules were based on Chainmail: http://www.jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/ori.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.9.42.103 (talk) 17:02:06, August 19, 2007 (UTC)
- I had read somewhere that the D&D rules were only very slightly associated with Chainmail.[1] But this may also be related to the long-brewing contention between Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax, so who knows? — RJH (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wouldn't NPOV dictate that this stop being quoted as a fact, and instead shown as a disputed point? Seems like only 2 people could know for sure, and they disagree. 67.9.42.103 04:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is a very old discussion, so I've copied User:67.9.42.103's and RJHall's comments below to the next section "Is D&D based on Chainmail?". I recommend further discussion happen there. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wouldn't NPOV dictate that this stop being quoted as a fact, and instead shown as a disputed point? Seems like only 2 people could know for sure, and they disagree. 67.9.42.103 04:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I had read somewhere that the D&D rules were only very slightly associated with Chainmail.[1] But this may also be related to the long-brewing contention between Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax, so who knows? — RJH (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Neutral
means that the article presents views fairly and without bias (see neutral point of view); however, articles need not give minority views equal coverage (see undue weight).
- Criteria Met - again this is one that can be a bit subjective. It does appear to be neutral to me as I read it, but I am not sure what evidence I could give to support that. So in the lack of any evidence that it is not neutral, I will declare that it is is. IF you can see any evidence that article is not neutral then please correct or provide evidence/examples here - Waza 01:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- In at least one matter, it is not NPOV. It shows Gygax's claim of the Chainmail origin of the rules, but not Arneson's contradiction: http://www.jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/ori.html ... only the two of them could know for sure, but Gygax has repeated it so much that that's become the folklore. 67.9.42.103 04:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is a very old discussion, so I've copied User:67.9.42.103's comment below to the next section "Is D&D based on Chainmail?". I recommend further discussion happen there. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- In at least one matter, it is not NPOV. It shows Gygax's claim of the Chainmail origin of the rules, but not Arneson's contradiction: http://www.jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/ori.html ... only the two of them could know for sure, but Gygax has repeated it so much that that's become the folklore. 67.9.42.103 04:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Stable
means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day; vandalism reverts and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.
- Criteria Met No major recent changes at all. Even looking back over a longer period to previous featured article nominations show while there has been a great improvement and lots of info spun off into particular topic articles the basic structure of the information and content has changed little in over two years. - Waza 01:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects
The obvious relevant Wikiproject is Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons. As this however is a unique article in the context of this project strong consideration should also be given to parent Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games and the style guidelines for an article about a role-playing game. Should also look at other project mentioned at the top of this article, grandparent project Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games. - Waza 00:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Concise lead section
that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;
- Very, very good lead section but I can suggest some areas that may be able to be improved. It has a bold title, correct location to the table of contents, established context and appropriate length as per Wikipedia:Lead section. It does provide a good accessable overview of the whole article, with a possible concern in the last paragraph. While valuable introductory information establishing the popularity of the game,this is not really expanded in the main article. Possibly we need to consider where this material is included in the article? Should it be replaced in the leader with a summary of "Related Products", "References in Popular Culture" and "Controversy and notoriety"? As these are not really covered yet in the leader. - Waza 23:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- My concerns above have been met, but there are two citations needed in the leader that require completion before the leader can be considered complete. - Waza 11:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Citations done (in one case, original research removed in the other). Leader complete. Criteria Met. - Waza 07:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Proper system of hierarchical headings
- Criteria Met - Matches recommendations of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) including correct naming of standard appendicies. - Waza 23:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Substantial but not overwhelming table of contents
(see section help).
- Criteria Met - this one seems a bit subjective, but I cannot see any reason why TOC is not "Substantial but not overwhelming". Anyone who disagrees please say why - Waza 00:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Images appropriate to the subject
with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. If fair use images are used, they must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labeled accordingly.
- Images are appropriate with captions. However I believe there is still work to be done with fair use images. These images need a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Help:Image page. That means something needs to be added to the page of every fair use image used in the Dungeons & Dragons article explaining why it is fair use in particular to use it on the Dungeons & Dragons page. - Waza 23:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Criteria Met - I have added fair use reasons specific to this article for all the remaining required images (about half were already done). Please remember to check these when checking through the article. - Waza 03:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Most images do not have the hidden text pointing to the fair use rationale as required. --Pak21 08:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- What do you mean by this? Can you please point to the requirement and provide an example of an image you think meets the requirement? Johntex\talk
- Please read Help:Image page#Fair_use_rationale as referenced above. "This should be done in two places. Firstly, add the following hidden text in the article: <!-- FAIR USE of IMAGENAME.jpg: see image description page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IMAGENAME.jpg for rationale -->". This has not been done for most of the images in the article. Trivial, but necessary. --Pak21 09:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- What do you mean by this? Can you please point to the requirement and provide an example of an image you think meets the requirement? Johntex\talk
- Most images do not have the hidden text pointing to the fair use rationale as required. --Pak21 08:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Appropriate length
staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Criteria Met. While article is over the the generally recommended max size of 32KB, it was under it before recent expansions of references. References are very necessary but don't add to main body of article.Some common objections to featured status and how to avoid them suggests that sucessful Featured Article candidates are 30-50KB long, this article is spot on in that range. Also article makes good use of summary style. - Waza 11:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)