Talk:Drizzt Do'Urden/GA1

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

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. All in all, the article looks fine. My initial comments are below. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 19:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC) I will place the article on hold. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 19:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * See WP:MoS - you have fantasy wikilinked twice in lead. Plus common words like novel do not need linking. (Besides, you have graphic novels linked.)
 * "For instance, Drizzt is concerned that any children of his and his love Cattie-Brie (a human) would face hostility from both races" - not exactly sure what you mean - "concerned that none of his children", or "concerned whether any of his children" or .... "concerned", meaning troubled if any of his children, interested in whether...
 * "concerned with the lifespan discrepancy" - do you mean "disturbed over", or "interested in"
 * "Salvatore created Drizzt, who is not based on the author, on a whim" - "who is not based on the author" seems unnecessary, like a non sequitor, are his characters usually based on the author?
 * "convinced her it would be alright" - "alright" seems a little too informal for an encyclopedia
 * what is "an elven child"?
 * in the section "Fictional character biography" could you combine some of the paragraphs to reduce chopiness? And also vary wording some. (You have three paras in a row that start with "Drizzt".)
 * "author R.A. Salvatore is best known as his creator" - and Drizzt is author R.A. Salvatore is best known creation"? - or some wording you like
 * "debuted at 4 on The New York Times's bestseller list and 2 on Publisher's Weekly bestseller list. The Lone Drow debuted at 7" - think you should use #4, #2, #7 etc.
 * "Reception" - can you expand this section to include some more specific examples of what reviewers thought?
 * "References" - I can't figure out why the first two references have extra periods in them.
 * Thanks for the review. I'll get right on it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just FYI—the extra period in that first ref is because Cite journal is missing the  parameter.  Pagra  shtak  20:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Missed that.
 * I think I fixed the issues you mentioned. Here's the diff.  I could only find two actual book reviews from reliables sources.  Hopefully the bio part isn't choppy.  If you have any more suggestions, I look forward to them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, very good! &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 23:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Every novel featuring Drizzt by Salvatore has made..." - are there novels featuring Drizzt that are not by Salvatore?
 * "The character is a breadwinner for Salvatore..." - seems too slangy for encyclopedia.
 * Is Drizzt an elf? (I saw your link to Elf (Dungeons & Dragons) further down.
 * Fixed breadwinner. I don't think anyone else has ever published a novel with Drizzt.  It's hard to prove a negative.  I haven't run across any in the past few weeks and umpteen google searches.  Apparently there was an unpublished novel, The Shores of Dusk,  by Mark Anthony.  It has an isbn (see here) but I'm pretty sure it was never published.  Here is the story, but it's not what we would consider a reliable source, although I'm sure it's true.  I can't find anything reliable on it, so I've left that out.  I changed it to saying how many books he has written (diff). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He's a drow. It's linked in the lede.  A drow is a type of evil elf with dark skin.   - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)
 * Ok, very nice job! &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable  c (OR): No OR
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: NPOV
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Thanks again. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks. :) BOZ (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks for the review!
 * Show up late to the party and all the good snacks are gone! ;) Great job everyone! Web Warlock (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)