Talk:Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 5

message: ====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)
thread_title: Well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable

message: 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)
thread_title: Well written

message: 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)
thread_title: Comprehensive

message: 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 others what we need to look for. - Waza 01:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Factually accurate

message: 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)
thread_title: Neutral

message: 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)
thread_title: Stable

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Citations done (in one case, original research removed in the other). Leader complete. Criteria Met. - Waza 07:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Complies with the standards set out in the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|manual of style]] and relevant [[Wikipedia:WikiProject|WikiProjects]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Citations done (in one case, original research removed in the other). Leader complete. Criteria Met. - Waza 07:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Concise [[Wikipedia:Lead section|lead section]]

message: *Criteria Met - Matches recommendations of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) including correct naming of standard appendicies. - Waza 23:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proper system of hierarchical headings

message: (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)
thread_title: Substantial but not overwhelming table of contents

message: 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)
thread_title: Appropriate length