Talk:Against the Giants/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Allo! I'll be your reviewer, you want fries with that? Emergency exits are located at the front and back of the article.. Anyway, I don't play table-top RPGs etc. so this will be an interesting read. Looking forward to working with you. Someone another 01:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get down to business, please fasten your safety belts:

The image in the infobox is massive, and tagged as such, this must be dealt with before the article is promoted.
"Hall of the Fire Giant King marked the first time that drow made a statistical appearance in a D&D product," What's a statistical appearance? Do you have a source for this (it's a definitive statement)?
Drow is wikilinked in publication history, the term first appears in the lead so should be linked there.
Ref #11 is missing a title, it has a bare web address instead.
Sorry, but I'm not seeing why ref #s 12 and 13 are being used in this context since they don't relate to this module, have I missed something?
"causing them to hire a group of adventurers (the PCs)" Apple Mac: "Avast ye oversized landlubbers, fear my keyboard" Giant: "Aaaaiieee". Erm, please spell out player character, with so much terminology flying around using acronyms is asking for trouble :)
"Things are really buzzing at TSR." please cite all direct quotes in the article immediately after the speech marks.
This paragraph: "Jim Bambra reviewed the re-released G module series very positively in issue 35 of White Dwarf magazine, awarding 10 out of 10. Bambra liked the reprinting, in that it reduced the overall price without affecting quality. He noted that the original tournament characters are included, although they were not included in the original three separate modules, and that not all of them conform to the rules in the Players Handbook. Two spells were also added. Bambra felt the adventure was difficult, and recommended playing it if you've had several years of D&D experience, because success depends more on the player's skill than their character's levels. He also recommended that a DM using this scenario should be experienced.[16]" For a start it would be ideal if the part about reduced price/same quality was a quote and cited. Per WP:SAY it would be a lot better to stick to 'said' rather than finding alternative terms (like 'felt'). "playing it if you've" > "and recommended it to players who have had several years experience with Dungeons and Dragons games" or something like that.
There are two more sources listed in 'further reading', are they there because you do not have access to them or are you depriving me of that lovely info?
What makes Game Ogre reliable? Are you sure those aren't reader reviews? Is there not a stronger site you could use to cover these mods?
Can the map-a-week external links be cited in the article? The mods get a mention, why not these, particularly as they're hosted on Wizards' website.
Is RPG.net reliable? If the reviews aren't good enough for the article I'd suggest removing them from the external links (it's sorta crowded down there).
There are several very short paragraphs, would you consider merging some to improve the article's flow?

I'm putting the article on hold now, as per usual I'll be checking each internal and external link now while you have a chance to mull over the above requests, further requests may result from that. Someone another 15:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review; busy today with family stuff, but maybe I'll be around tonight. :) BOZ (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, whenever you're ready. All internal and external links checked. Someone another 23:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reduded the image's size. I reworded the "statistical appearance" sentence, taking out that phrase and add a source for the new wording. Drow is now linked, I believe. All the refs are now formatted. I removed what were refs 12 and 13 (the numbering has now changed). Player character is now spelled out. I put refs after any sentence that contains a quote (unless I missed any).

The further reading refs are for magazines that we can't get a hold of, unfortunately.

I removed the Game Ogre/mod stuff. Only user generated sites (or parts of sites) talk about them as far as I could find. The mods can be downloaded on the pages that were previously cited, I just don't know if they're notable enough to include here. Neverwinter mods in general are notable, but not so much specific ones. I can put them back if you want.

The map a week stuff is now in the body of the article. I removed the RPG.net external links. Finally, I merged the short paragraphs and did a bit of copyediting to hopefully improve flow.

I don't have the White Dwarf magazine right now. Hey BOZ, you got that? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope; I wanted to get some White Dwarf copies but wasn't sure how to get them and kind of gave up. If I find a moment, I can see what I can do about fixing that problem though. BOZ (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recently reloaded my OS, and lost a lot of what I was using for referencing. I can DL it again, but it would be cool if you could step up to the plate. I've been drifting towards TV articles lately, so the D&D project could really use someone who knows how to find those old magazine articles. Also, sorry about the myspace snub, but I don't use myspace anymore. I check my facebook page maybe once a month, and that's it. Only wikipedia has enough drama to keep me coming back, I guess. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do! :) BOZ (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might have some difficulty; later today I'll try another avenue to see if someone else has a copy. BOZ (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to you both for your work on the article, I made a tweak which covers the White Dwarf review - if you've already asked around and obtained the text perhaps you could tweak it further, but if not I'm quite happy with it. Also did a quick reword in a few cases and typed-out some acronyms. Against the Giants is now a Good Article. Someone another 12:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! :) BOZ (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks a million. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]