Wikipedia:Peer review/Bunnies & Burrows/archive1

Bunnies & Burrows

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

I would like to see this article be as finely tuned as possible before submitting it for featured article review. I would like constructive critisism: harsh, blunt, what ever form it takes.

Thanks, Turlo Lomon (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

• I like Watership Down very much and am intrigued by this - is there anything on Richard Adams' reaction to the game? Was there any talk of suing the authors of the game for copyright infringement? Similar thoughts for D&D vs. B&B - is the name based on D&D - sure seems like it.

Good comments. I'll start here. Copywrite doesn't apply because there is nothing copywritten that was copied. The game is inspired/based by Watership Down, but it is not the same storyline, so copywrite wouldn't apply. D&D is a trademark, not a copywrite, and a similiar name is not copywrite infringement (or trademark infringement for that matter). If the game was Dragons & Dungeons, you might have something. Since neither of these are fact, they don't have a place in the article. Turlo Lomon (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I do think if you have a reliable source commenting on the similarity of the name B&B to D&D, that could be included. Otherwise it is OR and out. Would be cool if Adams has made any comments on the game. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have read the article twice and do not really understand what a game / campaign is like. What do the players do / what are the goals in a game - to establish a new warren? to find mates? to wander across the English countryside? (all ideas like Watership Down)

Your suggestions are possibilities. That is the interesting thing about RPGs. The game takes the players where ever they and the gamemaster wants it to go. A campaign could be a Bunny Fu kick boxing tournament if they wanted to. Previous reviewers had requested the gameplay section be cut down. Any suggestion on what a campaign would be like would fall under OR, as there is no "right" answer. Turlo Lomon (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I still think more could be said on the 8 abilities and 9 classes. I know in D&D there were canned campaigns available, are there any model adventures in the rules as a starter or canned campaigns that could be described? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• A possible problem at FAC would be the refs - do they meet WP:RS? What makes http://ptgptb.org/0003/hist3.html a relaible source, for example?

Because it is a published magazine. Have you checked out the entire site? Turlo Lomon (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, did not realize it was a magazine - just looked like a personal site when I went to it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Can you explain what "GURPS" means / stands for?

Generic Universal Roleplaying System. That is why the word is linked. GURPS is the proper name. However, I see your point. That last sentence could be expanded a bit. I will work on it. Turlo Lomon (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• The "See also" section generally does not repeat links that are already in the article, but Watership Down is definitely linked, not sure about the GURPS links.

I will look at this. Turlo Lomon (talk)

• Try to avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs - combine them with others or perhaps expand them

Gotcha. I will look at this as well. Turlo Lomon (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Publications section - these may need more information - place of publication for books, for example. See WP:CITE

I will review this again and see what was missed. Information is kind of lacking on a book out of print for over 30 years. Turlo Lomon (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Article is very short for a FA. While length is not a FA requirement, comprehensiveness is in WP:WIAFA and this may need to be more comprehensive. Dungeons & Dragons is a FA and may be a good model article for ideas and examples to follow.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comments were very useful. Thank you for them. I will be sure to take a whack at helping other editors out in peer review. Turlo Lomon (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I would also try to avoid "now" - for example in ... this edition is now long out of print. could be something like ... this edition is long out of print as of 2008. Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.panix.com/~sos/rpg/bunny.html
    • http://www.rpg.net/
    • http://www.nobleknight.com/default.asp
    • http://ptgptb.org/index.html (it's an online magazine...)
    • http://home.comcast.net/~boydmayberry/Bunnies.html
  • Per the MOS, link titles shouldn't be in all capitals.
  • Either list your authors last name first or first name first, pick one style and be consistent.
  • Current ref 15 is lacking a publisher.
  • http://translate.google.com/translate?sourceid=navclient&hl=en&u=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2eroliste%2ecom%2fdetail%2ejsp%3fid%3d8166 is a google translation, just link to the original.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 14:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)