Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Betrayal at Krondor/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review‎ | Betrayal at Krondor

Betrayal at Krondor edit

I have nominated this article as a Featured Article. Someone said I should request a peer review, on account of lack of citation. I argue that citations diminish the value of certain articles, such as this one. Your thoughts? Chris 18:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andy. I had a look. I made some changes to the article. Chris 22:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that footnotes are important in allowing all information to be verifiable, and I am not quite sure how they can be detrimental to articles like this one. AZ t 18:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I feel that references/citations are unsightly and without merit. Chris 21:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a question? Chris 22:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More of an inquiry. I mean, the article's lead calls it "one of the most widely-played, critically-acclaimed, and commerically-successful RPGs from the early 1990s," so I kind of expect some additional details regarding that statement. Nifboy 00:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How on earth can citations diminish the value? Trebor 19:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By cluttering up the page with unsightly links and text. It's ghastly, I feel, for an article to have little 1s or 2s or 3s or 1324s peppering the text. Besides, the very fact that an article remains in its present condition shows that it's been tacitly approved of by everyone viewing it. Chris 21:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether you find the 1s and 2s unsightly, Verifiability is an official policy - the aim is to get all the articles reliably sourced. Their merit is that they prove that the information is correct, otherwise you could write complete rubbish. Don't you think that's slightly more important than the links being unsightly?? Trebor 22:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only 1 footnote and no references, gameplay is too detailed and poorly written, development section talks nothing about development but the different release versions, no section on how the article performed in sales and reviews it got. Much work is needed to clean this article and bring it to quality standards. Refer to Doom for inspiration. - Tutmosis 20:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may be poorly written -- perhaps you could provide some tips on how to improve Betrayal at Krondor. Chris 21:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused by your comment, the quality of the writing of any text has nothing to do with the information itself. It has to do with how you get the information across. Also to add, I never played the game but I'm reluctant to examine the article to help you improve it because you don't seem eager to do so. We are only here to try to give ideas on how the quality of any given article can be improved not to ridicule it, I'm sorry if you feel I came across that way. - Tutmosis 22:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. Please forgive my insolence. Chris
Oh no need at all, we all sometimes run into difficulties with others. - Tutmosis 23:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


OK -- time to close this down.

No cites = no Featured Article, apparently Chris

Comment - Chris has been blocked indefinately for vandalism/disruption --PresN 16:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Betrayal_at_Krondor/archive1&oldid=191834105"