Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Forgotten Realms/1

Forgotten Realms

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Forgotten_Realms/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Delist: 2 months without activity. Please improve this article and bring it back to GAN! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It is clear that since it was accepted as a Good Article in 2009, Wikipedia standards have changed. The article is full of fictional cruft, with "The World" section being largely in-universe. Much of the "History" section is also just a timeline of releases rather than putting things in context. It strikes me as C-class at most and would need a significant amount of work to reach modern Good Article standards.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Sariel Xilo and I have been working on improving the article; we will see what we can do with it. BOZ (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I had a careful read of the article last night and it satisfies the good article criteria in that it is: If an editor is going to call for a reassessment then one would think it would be incumbent on that editor to specify which criteria the article does not meet, and why. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Well written
 * 2) Verifiable with no original research
 * 3) Broad in its coverage
 * 4) Neutral
 * 5) Stable
 * 6) Illustrated
 * Delist. 38 of the 77 references in the article—just under half—are primary sources: rulebooks, storefronts, product databases, interviews, and so on. Those sources also tend to get used repeatedly. Plenty of sentences and entire paragraphs, particularly about in-universe subjects and product releases, are entirely unreferenced. This article should be overhauled and based primarily on what reliable, third-party published sources have written about the subject. It's fine to fill in some minor non-controversial details with primary sources, but right now this is more of a Wikia fan page than a Wikipedia Good Article. Woodroar (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed a few of the primary sources that were redundant to non-primary sources, and will try to find some non-primary sources to add to what is already there and/or replace more of the primary sources. I also removed some of the unsourced information, particularly the basic listings of products without context. I will see what else I can do with it this morning. BOZ (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Some work has gone into the article over the past month. Does anyone have any suggestions on what else needs to be done as far as improvements? BOZ (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There are still huge sections of text in the Creative origins and Settings sections supported largely by primary sources, and much of the Publication history section is supported by industry sources. I also see a handful of "academic" sources that are cited here but essentially nowhere else online, including by other reliable sources. Are there actually so few truly independent sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Woodroar (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I accept that this one is probably beyond my ability to fix at this time or in the foreseeable future. BOZ (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a bummer, to be sure. I've loved the setting ever since I got the 1987 "Grey Box" a few years after its release. I've been looking for sources and it seems like the renaissance we're in has improved mainstream coverage of the game itself, but it's all surface-level coverage that ignores the settings. Woodroar (talk) 00:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)