Jump to content

Talk:Book of Vile Darkness/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Reassessment

[edit]

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

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. 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.
  2. 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)
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  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):
    The rationale should be strengthened; specifically why they are necessary. See Popotan or School Rumble for good examples.
  7. 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.