Talk:Dragon kill points/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

It's fixed now, I'm passing it. Admiral Norton (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Please clarify:
 * "As a result, the raid would only be rewarded DKP if at least one player desired the item dropped by the boss." &mdash; Rewarded with or awarded? Or something else?
 * Clarified. Protonk (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "They cannot be traded or redeemed outside the game world or even the guild itself like the virtual currencies created by the game developers." &mdash; Shouldn't this be: "unlike"?
 * I'll try to rewrite that sentence (s). There are some interesting distinctions between the two "currencies", but it is hard to get too illustrative without engaging in original research. Protonk (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rewritten. Protonk (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Because guilds mete out DKP in return for participation in events the functional result is that DKP serve less as currency or material capital and more as what Torill Mortensen refers to as a 'social stabilizer'." &mdash; Not really a prose issue, but I've listed it here to avoid creating new lists that make finding my suggestions more difficult. I can't find anything on Wikipedia either on Torill Mortensen or about "social stabilizers", so this needs an explanation, best coupled with a source to avoid introducing OR.
 * Ok. I'll go grab the paper again to flesh out that section.  There is also another paper my library doesn't have access to which explains the cultural/social capital element of things (more generally).  This might take a while (a week).
 * No problem, this is not a time trial, just let me know on my talk page when you find that paper. Admiral Norton (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I expanded on this somewhat. Protonk (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, logical quotations are advocated by MOS.
 * ✅. Double check to make sure I didn't miss any. Protonk (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * If you're going to use shortened footnotes, please list the complete citation below the numbered list as per WP:CITESHORT.
 * Thanks for that pointer. Guess I should do that for all "my" articles. :) Protonk (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Each footnote which is shortened has the full cite in the lower section. Protonk (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Quite a good balance between in-game mechanics and effect in the real world
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * I suggest moving the image to the upper right corner.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I've listed the suggestions above. When you find time, fix the article according to them or reply here if you don't agree. I'll check back soon. Admiral Norton (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I've listed the suggestions above. When you find time, fix the article according to them or reply here if you don't agree. I'll check back soon. Admiral Norton (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)