Talk:Pool of Radiance/GA1
Latest comment: 14 years ago by BOZ in topic Discussion
GA Review edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Having gone through the article, it's fairly well-written and constructed. However, I've found three issues that need to be resolved before I pass:
- Lead too long – per Wikipedia:Lead section#Length, the number of paragraphs in the lead should be two or three. Currently, it has four, with the article being around 20K characters of prose. Please reduce the lead down to two or three paragraphs according to that guideline. My recommendation is three, and you might not even have to remove much stuff if at all from the lead—more or less rearranging it and making into three paragraphs.
- Two potentially unverifiable portions. Please source with verifiable sources or alternatively remove them:
- "Gameplay" section – The "Gold Box" game engine features two different modes: a first-person perspective for exploring areas and interacting with non-player characters (NPCs); and a combat display which resembles a strategy-board, where characters and enemies are represented by small icons. Combat is turn-based and requires the player to move characters around the battlefield to approach the enemy.
- "Legacy" subsection, very last sentences – Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor was released in 2001 from Ubisoft. This game takes place in the ruins of Myth Drannor, once considered to be one of the biggest and most beautiful cities in the Forgotten Realms, but now the elven city is in ruins. This game uses rules updated for the Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition game.
- Other things to remember
- No images below L3 headings – please don't place images directly below a L3 heading as the software doesn't like that (for whatever reason).
- Alt text for images – remember to place alt text in the images, as this is a requirement for FA.
- Redundant citations – except for quotes, you only need to place a citation at the end of the content and not at the end of every sentence.
- Conclusions
– Placed on hold pending further improvements. MuZemike 20:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
– Passed. MuZemike 16:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Discussion edit
Thanks for the review! I'll try to get to everything as soon as possible. It's glad to know I'm not too far off. :)
Regarding the lead, I seem to remember being told at peer review (by more than one person, I think) that this article needs more than one paragraph. If you're sure I don't I can merge it into 2-3. I'll take a look at the rest before long. Thanks! BOZ (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- My recommendation, as noted above, is three. MuZemike 23:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- LOL, I meant above to say that people were recommending FOUR paragraphs for this one. :) But yeah, I can work it out to three. BOZ (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- You guys should work this out as reasonable editors, exactly as you are doing. But, the size of leads is a somewhat hotly contested thing right now. I don't really recommend bothering reading all about it, but here's a link.[1] My summary of it is that the correct size of a lead hasn't been spelled out that well at this point, and people are discussing (arguing) about it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't have a preference; I only put it to four in the first place because others were insisting that this was the right thing to do. ;) Three is fine by me. BOZ (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- The layout of the lead of this article, as it is, is excellent in my view. (Yes, I am aware of the discussion going on with the lead length, and will adjust fire when consensus necessitates such a change.) MuZemike 07:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- One more thing to improve in the lead, and that is the very beginning. The first sentence in the article should always be the most basic description as can be (see changes here). The following sentences in the lead can do the same, which I will leave to you. The second sentence should describe, in the most basic terms, its relation to AD&D. The rest of the information should naturally follow. MuZemike 07:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't have a preference; I only put it to four in the first place because others were insisting that this was the right thing to do. ;) Three is fine by me. BOZ (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- You guys should work this out as reasonable editors, exactly as you are doing. But, the size of leads is a somewhat hotly contested thing right now. I don't really recommend bothering reading all about it, but here's a link.[1] My summary of it is that the correct size of a lead hasn't been spelled out that well at this point, and people are discussing (arguing) about it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- LOL, I meant above to say that people were recommending FOUR paragraphs for this one. :) But yeah, I can work it out to three. BOZ (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)