Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dungeons & Dragons/archive1

Dungeons & Dragons
Self nom. This article was formerly nominated as a FAC and, rightfully, failed. Since then I and several people have worked hard to whip the article into shape. The article has also been peer reviewed recently. The primary objections to the previous FAC were: (1) A lack of references. (2) Poor copyediting. (3) Size of the article. (4) Lack of organization. (5) Failure to cover certain subjects (such as related products) in sufficient detail. These problems have been fixed and the article polished up above-and-beyond. I think it's ready to become a featured article. Justin Bacon 05:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC) I think I am not finished yet and that someone should continue this in order improve the article. Vb 09:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support it passes now... last time it just wasnt ready for the prime time.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 06:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Object I have tried to re-edit the page but my English is quite poor so that I fear the page (or at least my contribtutions) should be re-edited. I have tried to change the following points:
 * The article provides the impression to the reader that D&D is a simple tabletop game requiring some items which can be purchased and not a role-playing game. One does not need to have the v3.5 to be able to play in the D&D universe with D&D rules!  One can also invent one's own rules and settings!  This is said in the article but should be said in the game overview or in the lead.
 * One should remove all standard D&D abbreviation (DM, RPG,... except D&D, AD&D when clear)
 * Criticisms should be expanded with comparision with other RPGs
 * The tone is sometimes condescendant with earlier versions. See caption of the cover of the D&D 4th edition printing.
 * Many lists and very short (1 or 2 sentence) paragraphs should be merged into prose
 * What are Game Board (Cloth?) and computer programs (in the Play overview section)?


 * Object. It's a substantial article that might come up to scratch with four or five hours of intensive work. Here are a few problems that I notice without yet having read it properly.
 * Lots of stop-start paragraphing. One solution might be to insert more bullets, which will require rewording and proper punctuation. Another may be to merge paragraphs. At the moment, the flow is adversely affected.
 * I see that you assume women don't/can't/shouldn't play the game. Please change the sexist language. A common way of avoiding the generic male pronoun is to pluralise ('When players choose to have their character attempt an action' rather than 'When a player chooses to have his character attempt an action').
 * The prose needs a BIG clean up—in many places there's a looseness or awkwardness. For example:
 * 'a random die roll' might be clearer as 'a random roll of the die';
 * 'The results of those actions are determined using the game's rules, which govern almost everything from combat to social interaction. However, the Dungeon Master is responsible for interpreting the rules and most simple actions can be resolved from simple logic without referring to the rules.' The logic of 'However' escapes me; then there's a statement that seems to flow better straight from the first sentence. And try 'responsible for interpreting the rules, and most simple actions can be resolved using simple logic without reference to the rules.' It will confuse readers, this shunting from A1 to B and then back to A2.
 * 'Races include elves, dwarves, humans, and halflings among others.' But 'include' does mean 'among others'—you don't need both.
 * 'They help the master to create some story and backgrounds.'—'some story' is not idiomatic English.

Now, it's all like this, so you need to enlist a language-nerd who hasn't seen the text yet. It will be worth it to make it read smoothly—then you'll be proud of it, and frankly, nothing less will do for a FA. (Mind you, I haven't looked at the content; others may have suggestions there.) Tony 09:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've made a pass through the article and changed the language to be gender-neutral. It looks to me like other editors have addressed some of your other constructive critiques as well. Nandesuka 12:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment. This FA nomination seems to have gone off track rather rapidly. We have one person with poor English skills complaining about the presence of imaginary material that never appeared in the article (a caption mentioning a "4th edition" of the game which doesn't exist) and the lack of material which aleady appeared in the article (an explanation of game boards that can be used with the game). He introduces clumsy language into the article... which is then cited by the next person as a reason to object before the problem can be corrected. Oh, plus a push to make the Wikipedia article on D&D the best place to push an agenda on revising the English language.
 * Reply I had mistaken edition with printing. I am sorry.  I think my clumsy language is better than nothing.  I still believe some important elements were and (to some extend still are) missing in the article.  However I am happy the editors of the article have not reversed my edits but make copyedit instead.  The article mentioned game boards and computer programs without explaining at all what they are.  I am sorry also for my misunderstanding of notoriety my mother tongue is French and in French notoriété can be positive as well as negative. I have looked in a dictionary.  Thanks. Vb 20:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Non-native speakers can often make valuable contributions to the eng.WP; there's a case for arranging a pairing system with native-speakers so that we can express information and views from outside anglophonia in good English. Over to the Board on that. Will the reviewer who complained of a 'push' please explain what s/he meant? Tony 08:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I was guessing they were referring to your comments on sexist language, making a rather uncivil and unclear defense of the position that English allows "he" to be used as the generic third-person pronoun. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak object. There's quite a bit of abbreviation used that demands that the reader makes the connection between the introduction of the terms and their acronyms.  Also, the prose needs a little polishing.  What is the difference between a "random die roll" and a "die roll"?  The sentence "Much of the potential for parody in Dungeons & Dragons may exist because, with its heroic millieu and imagination-based gameplay, it exaggerates the visibility of the gap between the actuality of the players' self-image and the personas they adopt when interacting with others" is laboured.  Having said that, the article is quite good at explaining what the game is, so long as the reader is willing to follow the wikilinks to important terms like "roleplaying game".  Jkelly 17:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support.  (Full disclosure: I've done quite a bit of editing on this article in the past couple of months).  I concur with Justin Bacon.  I think it's ready.  I'll make a pass through again to address some of the specific grammar concerns raised by some editors. Nandesuka 12:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)