# Talk:Dorfromantik (board game)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dorfromantik (board game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Chorchapu (talk · contribs) 23:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: History6042 (talk · contribs) 02:33, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I will do this one. History6042😊 (Contact me) 02:33, 16 August 2025 (UTC)


#### Comments
First comments today. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:27, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Image review: History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:28, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
File:Dorfromantik board game.webp
Fair use
Rationale seems good
File:Dorfromantik.jpg
CC BY-SA 4.0
Email confirmation
Image review pass. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Stability is all good. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Is there any information about sales and commercial success that could be added? History6042😊 (Contact me) 18:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any English sources but the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (unpaywalled) states that in Nov 2023 500,000 copies had been sold (as far as I could tell; I don't speak German well). Of course this is wildly out of date by now but do you think it should be added to the article? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:34, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
I don’t think it’s enough info for a whole section, but I think it could be added in the reception section, something like: After one year, the game had sold 500,000 copies. History6042😊 (Contact me) 02:32, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
I've done so now. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Added to the video game article as well! (Also courtesy ping to History6042.) --PresN 21:32, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, most of my reviews have been delayed by a lot because my computer mouse stopped working but I got it back now and this is second in my list to finish. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
@History6042, hello, just checking in, are you still reviewing this?  Chorchapu (talk | edits) 21:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Neutrality seems all good. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
I will spotcheck sources 7b, 23, 39, and 43. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:46, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
7b - All good.
23 - All good.
39 - Can't access source, but I will AGF.
43 - All good.
Source review pass.
History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:51, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
I fixed all prose issues, pass. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:37, 27 September 2025 (UTC)


### Dorfromantik (board game)
This article was recently rejected at FAC and I'm looking to improve it. Some of the issues raised included confusing prose, strange phrasing, and overciting. I'd like help with fixing these and seeing what other things I can do to improve it. Another thing is doing fair-use rationales so that would be appreciated as well.
Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:07, 4 October 2025 (UTC)


#### RoySmith
I would start by attacking the WP:citation overkill called out in the FAC.  For each statement, find the one best source which supports it.  Sometimes it's difficult to write a good sentence without pulling from multiple sources, but I would expect a maximum of two sources per sentence is a good rule.  By the time you've got three for a single sentence, that's a real red flag.  This is not just for style, it's also to help your reviewers who are going to need to check that the claims in your article are supported by the sources.  If you give them three, four, or more sources to pick from, that makes their job harder.  This is why I suggest starting here.
After you've done that, the next place I'd work on is "Basic game" and "Campaign"  Both of these sections contain many very short paragraphs.  There's no hard and fast rule on how long a paragraph should be, but my general rule is "Each paragraph should cover a complete idea".  That being said, a series of short paragraphs is difficult to read, so sometimes it makes sense to combine a bunch of ideas into a single paragraph just for reading ease.  I like to think paragraph breaks (and to a smaller extent, sentence breaks) as hints to the reader that this is a good place to stop to make sure they understood what they just read, and then reset their short-term memory before jumping into the next idea.
I'm looking through the chart at Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Assessment and only see a single board game article which reached FA: Hyborian War.  I'm pinging Airborne84 who wrote that article in the hopes they can provide some useful advice.  I also suggest advertising this PR at WT:BOARDGAME to see if you can solicit some additional help from people interested in the topic. RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
Looking at the sources, I see that boardgamegeek.com is used a lot.  According to https://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/BoardGameGeek_FAQ, "All the information within our database was meticulously and voluntarily entered on a game-by-game basis by our user base"  In other words, WP:UGC and not a WP:RS.  That's not going to fly at FAC (to be honest, I'm surprised it passed GAN). RoySmith (talk) 02:25, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I've implemented the changes suggested where possible. No other editors have reviewed this, however, so do you have any other suggestions? Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:56, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith –Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
You've still got four citations for Dorfromantik (the video game) was developed in Berlin by Toukana Interactive, a German indie game studio which was founded in 2020 as part of a master's degree program at the Berlin University of Applied Sciences (two of which 404's).  Same with They have been working at the board game studio Pegasus Spiele since at least 2012 (and again, one of those 404's).  The problem with WP:OVERCITE was pointed out in the FAC, and I pointed it out again above, as the first item.  You really need to fix that before working on anything else.
I also pointed out to you that boardgamegeek is probably not a good source, but you've still got a bunch of citations that use it.  I also see that in the FAC, SchroCat told you (the first comment they left) that the opening sentence had problems.  You haven't done anything about that.  SC also complained about When the video game Dorfromantik was nominated for the Deutsche Computerspielepreis (English: German PC Game Award), a game from the studio where Zach worked was nominated as well. and you haven't done anything about that either.  I'll be blunt here: when people tell you about problems, you have to fix them. RoySmith (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry I didn't implement all the changes suggested originally. I think I've put them in all now.
Regarding the sentence They have been working at the board game studio Pegasus Spiele since at least 2012, all three citations are necessary to verify the sentence. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 03:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Looking over the sources, I think you have a lot of work ahead of you to find better ones.  Most of the sources you are using are not what I would consider high quality reliable sources which are required by WP:FACR.  Most of them look like places that sell the game, so not WP:INDEPENDENT.  Many of your links 404.  I would suggest asking at WP:GAMES for advice on how to select good sources. RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)


### Piotrus
Finding more RS is though for such topics. Here are some reviews I'd consider likely RS in Polish (sadly, we run out of steam at Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Sources, so it's subjective for most of them): [1] and [2] from pl:Gram.pl, [3], [4]. I call them reliable as they are non-anonymous and on projects run by groups, not just some random one person blogs. TIn addition, there are English RS that are not used. I don't have time to search much, but I stumbled upon [5], and I was surprised it is not used. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank your for these suggestions. It does seem like #5 is just about the video game though. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 12:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
I've gone through and added the applicable sources to the article. It seems like foreign sources are much less lenient in their reviews... Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)