Talk:Book of Vile Darkness/GA1
Appearance
GA Reassessment
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- It constantly refers back to other items with words like "As with...", "Like most..." Those are minor though.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- Several statements in the Before release section, including quotes, are unsourced. Furthermore, the article fails WP:BK as there is only 1 secondary source noting commenting on it (having the material included in later supplements does not confer notability)
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- The book lacks reception and coverage. It has too little detail on its reception or impact (impact being on items outside WotC/Hasburo). This means it may have too much backhistory that is trying to make up for the lack of reception/impact.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- I believe there was some problems mentioning this book among others for power creep brought into 3.5. However with a lack of independent RSes, it's unclear if this is NPOV issue or just lack of content.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- The rationale should be strengthened; specifically why they are necessary. See Popotan or School Rumble for good examples.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- While there is great background, the article fails WP:BK. It appears the amount of background detail is trying to make up for the lack of real-world impact and reception, but it cannot.
- Pass/Fail: