Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ravenloft (module)/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 19:12, 18 February 2009 [1].

---

Ravenloft (module)

Nominator(s): Drilnoth (talk)

I am nominating this article for featured article because I think that it meets all of the criteria. It has been improved greatly since the last FAC and it has undergone a peer review, with all concerns addressed. I'll do whatever I can to bring it up to FA-Class. Drilnoth (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Image review: one single non-free image with an acceptable rationale, no issue. Jappalang (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

• What makes http://www.dlnexus.com/ a reliable source?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. For the reliability of DLNexus, the specific article being referenced is written by Tracy Hickman, and he knows more about Ravenloft than just about any other RPG designer there is, having been a co-creator of the original module. If evidence is needed for the site as a whole, rather than just the one article, I'll quote what David Shepheard (talk · contribs) has said on the subject (removing irrelevant information):

...A quick look at the Dragonlance Nexus homepage reveals that it was the winner of the 2007 Ennie Award for best fansite... A bit of research would have revealed... that Dragonlance Nexus was once given 'official Dragonlance fansite status' by Wizards of the Coast (the owners of the Dragonlance IP). Further research would have revealed that Trampus Whiteman (who runs Dragonlance Nexus) is mentioned in the credits of most of the 3rd edition Dragonlance RPG books (either as a 'thankyou' or an contributor to the product). I would say that 99.9 percent of people who know anything about Dragonlance wouldn't dream for a second of accusing this website of being unreliable.... Dragonlance Lexicon (run by Dragonance Nexus) is one of the better rechearched [sic] secondary sources available to anyone doing D&D research, and people who want to improve Wikipedia should be attempting to gain support from its staff.... Big Mac (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Does that information, coupled with the article itself being written by Hickman, establish reliability of that article? Thanks. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It helps, but does the information in the specific article no longer exist at Hickman's site? I'm also a bit concerned that it might be reprinted on the dlnexus without permission. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the bottom of the page does say, "This item has been published here with permission from the author(s) and may not be reproduced without permission." BOZ (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The article itself does say that "This item has been published here with permission from the author(s) and may not be reproduced without permission" and this page lists other things on DLNexus accredited to Hickman, if that helps. Here's a link to the original messageboard discussion; would it be better to reference that? -Drilnoth (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This one, we'll leave out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. (I do now remember seeing that line at the bottom... I plead too many bishops this morning...) I lean slightly reliable on this one, but better to let other reviewers decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay; thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• I am CoIed from supporting or opposing (I worked a few years as a game tester for the company that bought TSR), but I wanted to say that I was impressed and that the formatting appears clean. The last line of the second paragraph in "Original edition" might need a citation. Also, with the last line of the first paragraph of "Silver Anniversary editions" and "Ravenloft II: The House on Gryphon Hill". I believe I still have these somewhere. You failed to mention that there was a long novel series, which may need a small section or added to the "campaign setting". There were what, over 20 of the novels? It may have expanded since I was last involved with the company (before 2002). Ottava Rima (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We could mention the novel series, but I suspect those had more to do with the Ravenloft setting than the Ravenloft module (two related, but totally separate animals). Although I do remember at one point the article saying something about a novel or two which had been adatped from the module itself, and if so those should get a mention. BOZ (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• • (ec)The novel series doesn't directly relate to the module, but to the setting as a whole (I think that the Ravenloft article has some info about it). I'll take a look at those sentences you mentioned. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The mentioned sections for the addition of citations are all verifiable by looking at the books being discussed, so I don't think that citations are really needed (it's kind of like a plot summary for a book not having many refs). -Drilnoth (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments - Overall, I'm also impressed by this one. This round of comments comes after I read most of the article; I'll read the rest later.

• Original edition: "The outer cover is designed in keeping of the style of many Dungeons & Dragons module covers of the time." I get what "in keeping of the style" means, but I think it can be worded better.
• Critical reception: Italics for White Dwarf, a printed publication. Do this again for Ravenloft II: The House on Gryphon Hill.
• Master of Ravenloft: "who must defeat the evil vampire Count Strahd von Zarovich in his dangerous home in order to save a young girl from becoming one of the undead." This change would remove a touch of wordiness.
• House of Strahd: Another "in order" that can be taken out.
• Silver Anniversary editions: "with the only difference from the original being...". This sentence structure is known as noun plus -ing, and is a hard-to-find prose error. For tips on how to fix it, please read this.
• Expedition to Castle Ravenloft: "with new design that compliments the original." Should "a" be placed before new?
• "similar to those the maps in the original Ravenloft adventure." One word too many. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll fix these later today. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that this edit fixed all of your points. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ravenloft II: The House on Gryphon Hill: "each of whom worked on their own section in order to meet a deadline." Same as the two above.
• "The adventure is designed for first edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons characters of levels 8-10." Change the last part to either "levels 8 to 10" or "levels 8–10".
• "who stated the module as a "strong sequel to I6 Ravenloft" and recommended it highly." Change "as" to "was"?

I'm all done here after these are checked out. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks! I think I fixed all of those... let me know if I missed anything. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've become a little concerned about Laser's oppose, especially since it involves jargon, which I never seem to catch. Holding off support for now, and awaiting more work to resolve his concerns. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Okay; that makes sense. If you do see any jargon that needs fixing, be sure to let us know! -Drilnoth (talk) 23:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, 1a. As a former AD&D fan, I was interested to read this, and you have a great start! However, the prose falls short of FA quality. I've listed some sample issues below just from the lead and beginning; these are indicative of article-wide problems. Please get someone new to copyedit the whole article. Additionally, it needs treatment for game jargon that a general audience will not understand.
  • The DLNexus site seems reliable (enough) to me, noting the discussion above.
  • "The plot of Ravenloft centers around ..." Centers on, or revolves around.
  • The sentence in the lead about the ranking needs to be put in active voice so we know who ranked.. why make the reader click a footnote or even read a source to find out?
  • "spin-off"
  • "alphanumeric"
  • First sentence of the first heading loses me... a general audience reader will have no idea why they are reading about coding.
  • "The outer cover is designed similar to of many ..." To of?
  • Outer cover.. outer (glossy) side of the inner cover.. very confusing.
  • "The module originally had the working title of Vampyr, and it was tested every Halloween for five years ..." Again, specialist language. How is a module "tested"? Why only on Halloween, and for five years?
  • "... before it was printed, before being sold" This sort of repetition is not ideal, and affects readability.

--Laser brain (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • I think I've fixed everything (in this edit), except for clarification of what testing is, and why on Halloween for five years, because the source used wouldn't be able to support those statements. I've read the article a few times and feel like the prose can't really be improved much more, but if you mention anything else I'll be sure to try and fix it. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Hi, as I said, these are sample problems. The article needs treatment by someone fresh to the text—often it is difficult to see our own prose issues and an effective copyeditor can help volumes. There are far too many issues to delineate here. --Laser brain (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Scapler (talk · contribs) has started a copy-edit. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
          • I have finished an initial copyedit, and I will go over my edits tomorrow, when I have a fresh perspective on them. As of now, there are still a very few trouble spots where I feel that jargon I am not familiar with should be clarified. Besides these, I feel the prose is FA level. The term "encounter layout" should be explained, and I would question the use of each module alteration including the character levels it is recommended for. Scapler (talk) 05:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
            • I believe that I have clarified the "encounter layout" section. I think that having the character levels is useful... they may not be very helpful to readers unfamiliar with the game (although I think enough explanation is provided that their inclusion isn't detrimental), but they are very helpful to readers who are interested in or play the game. Being a D&D player myself, I can't really separate the jargon out of the rest of it... if you could point out the confusing points, I'll try to clarify them. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• More comments I haven't had time to go through the whole thing again, but my random samples aren't encouraging.
  • Why, if the names of campaign settings are not in italics, is the alternate title Realm of Terror in italics?
  • After reading a couple sample sections, the prose seems to have improved somewhat; the accessibility, not.
  • I am still finding prose issues:
    • "how much filler material seems to be used to fill"
    • "The adventure's artwork has been criticized ..." This odd piece of prose places the criticism on the artwork (correct) but the blame also on the artwork (incorrect). The artwork didn't use or reuse anything, the designers and artists did.

--Laser brain (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • I'll look at those other prose issues. For Realm of Terror being italicized and Ravenloft (in references to the setting) not, Realm of Terror was an actual, printed product. Setting names, such as Ravenloft, aren't italicized. It's similar to the relation between Forgotten Realms (setting) and Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (the book that describes the setting).
      For accessibility, I assume that you are referring to "gamer jargon." It's difficult for me to differentiate the two, being a player of D&D to whom the terminology seems natural at this point, so if you could point out what places need clarification to make it more accessible, I'd be happy to rewrite them. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I think much of it has been taken care of, including the ones I found confusing. I will go over it again later and see if there are more. Scapler (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Note, I had some hope that you'd had time to iron things out here, but I'm still readily finding issues. I got no further than the lead and the first few sentences of the first heading. Please withdraw this until you've had time to get a careful and effective copyedit; until then, this is not ready. Just from a few lines:
  • There is a mixture of en dashes and em dashes to indicate a pause in the text.
  • "At the time of Ravenloft's release in 1983, Dungeons & Dragons adventures all had alphanumeric designations to indicate which module "series" it was a part of." Grammar.
  • "The inside of both covers contain maps of Castle Ravenloft." Grammar.

--Laser brain (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • All fixed. Scapler (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks Scapler. Anyway, how would you recommend doing a full copyedit, since there have been multiple people doing them already? Since you're noticing quite a few things, do you think that you could fix them up rather than posting them here? -Drilnoth (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, it's more quality than quantity that counts on the copyediting—Scapler is doing great work but we're just not at the right level yet. I'm not sure what resources might be available for finding a copyeditor, but you could try WikiProject resources to dig up people who might be interested. I don't have the time or inclination currently. --Laser brain (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Okay; I'll give the article another full line-by-line read over the next few days and see if that helps. At this point, is jargon still a big issue or is it mostly the rest of the prose? -Drilnoth (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
            • I've done a full copyedit (with a little help from BOZ (talk · contribs)!), viewable in this diff. Is that better? Thanks. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
              • No, I'm sorry but it is still far from meeting criterion 1a. You actually introduced errors (ex. that/which error, duplicate words, etc.). Delving into a sample section (Expedition to Castle Ravenloft) readily reveals problems. Please withdraw this and get a careful copyedit by someone new to the text; you simply can't expect reviewers to repeatedly return only to find that basic problems have not been fixed, or in fact have been introduced. --Laser brain (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
                • Fair enough; I'll look for more copyeditors to give it a look over. Would you mind my notifying you if/when this is an FAC again? -Drilnoth (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
                  • Absolutely, and thank you for not taking it personally. Withdrawing with grace is a commendable action. I am also willing to help with copyediting when time is less of an issue. --Laser brain (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
                    • Sounds good, and thanks for all of your help here! -Drilnoth (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
                    • Thanks for the offer; that will give us a much better conception of where your expectations lie. :) BOZ (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• Withdraw As needing additional copyediting from outside sources. However, I do plan to renominate once more of the prose issues are fixed. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.