Wikipedia:Peer review/Dungeons & Dragons/archive3
Dungeons & Dragons edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion is closed. |
This became a Featured Article in 2007 and needs to under go a review to maintain that status (this was flagged at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons#FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject). I haven't brought an article through the FA process so I thought peer review would be a good first step in sorting out what needs to be improved. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- If you want to expand the video game influence mentions, this pair of articles delves into it:
- Rjjiii (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Pamzeis edit
I'll give this a pretty brief review... the comments are not in order 
- Copyvio report; quotation usage should be reduced
- The images in #Play overview are tiny (like a dwarf, y'know) and would benefit from being bigger
- #Play overview is really long, taking up about 16% of the article. I think the article would benefit from focussing more on the out-of-universe stuff. I know this is a complex game, but this section probably needs a trim.
- #Edition history is also super long. Does the reader really need all this when they can read the actual article about the editions if they're interested?
- What is the structure for #Reception? If you hadn't read them already, WP:RECEPTION and User:Panini!/Copyediting Video Game Reception Sections (I know this isn't a video game, but... it still helps) can really help with this. Quotation usage should also be reduced 'cause they appears to take up more than 60% of the section
- I'm surprised nothing is mentioned about how the alignment system is used outside of the game, as I've seen it come up a lot, even on WP.
- "D&D also had a large impact on modern video games" — how so?
- The last three paragraphs of #History of criticism seem to be a bit disorganised, and have a bit of fluff and trivia in them. They should probably be trimmed and read through to make sure everything is relevant and significant
- Check the sources' reliability; some sources seem questionable, e.g. Geek Native, www.gametopiastudios.com, Nerdarchy and more (there are actually more but I'm too lazy to list them all)
- Make sure all (known) parameters are filled in sources
- Make sure the citation style is consistent; some are just a paragraph of text (e.g. "According to a 1999 survey in the United States, 6% of 12- to 35-year-olds have played role-playing games. Of those who play regularly, two thirds play D&D."), while others are formatted using {{cite web}}, etc.
Overall, I feel like this article needs some work to stay an FA. And I didn't even really read the article, lol, just skimmed through. I think FAR reviewers would find a lot more issues than me... so good luck with this! Pamzeis (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with all of these points, particularly the overuse of quotations. Beyond the copyright concerns, quotations can be an NPOV issue—they sound good but are often cherry-picked passages that may not summarize the entire source. Like sound bites, they have their place but should be used sparingly. Woodroar (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
@Sariel Xilo: It has been over a month since the last comment. Can this be closed? Z1720 (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Thanks everyone who took a look! Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)