Talk:White Plume Mountain/GA1

Latest comment: 15 years ago by Peregrine Fisher in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA and will list my comments below. I did a little copy editing for punctuation. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Comments
  • One judge described it as a "the puzzle dungeon to end all puzzle dungeons." - what does this mean?
  • Added context.[1]
  • He said "Heck, you could chuck out the first two" and White Plume Mountain would still be a "classic" - I am a little uncomfortable seeing two quotes strung together as if they were said at once. (Maybe they were, but it could also be WP:SYN.)
  • I put in the full quote.[2]
  • "Plot summary" - I do not think this is complete enough for a general reader unfamiliar with the game to make any sense of.
  • I removed some excessive detail and expanded the setion.
  • conform with v3.5 rules - you have not given any context for rule versions
  • the classic weapons associated with them (Blackrazor, Whelm and Wave for White Plume Mountain, Frostrazor for Return to White Plume Mountain) - have you mentioned these before or am I missing something?
  • They were mentioned in the plot section, but I've now mentioned them some more.
  • the "Reception" section seems rather skimpy and bland considering "White Plume Mountain was ranked the 9th greatest Dungeons & Dragons adventure of all time."
  • I added some quotes to the recepton section, and fixed the quote in the quote box. Hopefully this sexes it up a bit.
  • The pix - —Mike Mearls describing the adventure's "crazy fun" in Dungeon magazine - this doesn't make any sense to me. At first I thought it was a mistake until I checked back in the history and saw that it has always been that way.
  • I'm not sure what happened there. I fixed it.
  • All in all this does not seem like a comprehensive description of this module. It does not match the completeness of your prior articles on modules.

Mattisse (Talk) 21:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the review. I'll get right on it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Comment
  • who described it as the "amusement park of dungeons" with a story similar to the A-Team or The Equalizer - I don't think this is helpful in the lead. First, quotes should be avoided in the lead. Secondly, if the reader does not know the A-Team or The Equalizer it means nothing. And even if the reader does, the reader would have to puzzle out what the quotation means in this context. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think I've addressed your comment. This article was definitely lacking, and your comments have again led to a big improvement. If you have any other comments or concerns, I look forward to them. Thank you. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Comments
  • Much improved! However:
  • too many unnecessary quotes in "Reception" section
  • why repeat "crazy, over the top, pure fun" in the text, then right next to it in the caption? What does it really say?
  • what does this really say: "Further, he said that while it was not as brutal as Tomb of Horrors, it made up for it with "crazy, over the top, pure fun"? Pure fun makes up for a lack of brutality? Makes those of us who are general readers wonder!

Mattisse (Talk) 01:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Mattisse (Talk) 03:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Comment

I just wonder why you do not credit Jeff Dee in the pix caption, like Spider-man does. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): Well written   b (MoS): Follows MoS  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): Well referenced   b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable   c (OR): No OR  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): Sets the context   b (focused): Remains focused on subject  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias: NPOV  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:  
  6. 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):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Congratulations!

Mattisse (Talk) 00:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Great! :) I added a caption, although the formatting may need a tweak. BOZ (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks so much Mattisse. Your comments really improved the article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply