Talk:Bunnies & Burrows/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Some of the parenthetical prose could be tightened up, e.g. "As such, the game emphasized role-playing over combat for, (as Steffan O'Sullivan described the situation), "You're playing a rabbit, after all – how much combat do you want to do?"" and "The editor of Steve Jackson Game's former Illuminati website acknowledged that Steffan received his wish, and kept the original conversion article online"--who? "Nevertheless, in spite of these first impressions, the game has generally received positive reviews"--lose either the "nevertheless" or the "in spite of" A couple of other nits: Fictive vs. fictional, is there a difference that prompts using the less common word? "modern role-playing games today" is redundant.
    A couple of those errors were ones I mistakenly introduced, and they should be taken care of now. I left the "The editor of Steve Jackson Game's..." as I figure Turlo Lomon will be in a better place to decide how to handle that. - Bilby (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
    It should be easy enough to track down who was the editor the magazine at the time, but unfortunately, those sites are blocked while I am at work. I may not be able to get to this until Friday morning. Turlo Lomon (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
    Editor name now added with source. Turlo Lomon (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    The Watership Down reference is actually reference 2, not 3... unless 3 also covers the same material?
    Reference 3 makes the same claim. I included it because, as a published book, it seemed like a slightly more reliable source, but I'm very happy to replace it with 2 if you wish. - Bilby (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
    Is there any reason why we can't have multiple references attached to it? Turlo Lomon (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  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):
  7. Overall:
    A few nits. I'm probably being a little harder on this because I already was familiar with your efforts to drive to GA, and I don't want to appear biased. Still, I have no doubt you'll be able to improve these in short order. ON HOLD for up to a week. Jclemens (talk) 07:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
    I want you to be hard on this article, so I appreciate the time and effort you have gone through to review it. Rest assured, the team at WP:RPG will make sure all of these changes will be made in quick order. Turlo Lomon (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Second pass[edit]

Here's a few more things I've seen.

  • "Finally, it is the first role-playing game to appeal equally to women as well as men."--This and the corresponding statements from ref [2] should be attributed to O'Sullivan in the text. It's his opinion, and may or may not be fact.
  • "However, the poor production values provided a barrier to the acceptance of the game: the art, illustrated by Charles Loving, was "sketchy and of poor quality", while the document as a whole gave the appearance of having been typewritten." Break this up... it seems slightly run-on-ish, and the opening "however" doesn't seem to logically follow well from the previous sentence.

I'm going to pass it now, but please go ahead and make appropriate changes to address these concerns. Jclemens (talk) 06:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

These should be fixed now. Thanks for your time in reviewing this. Turlo Lomon (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Just my 2cents. Excellent work everyone I am very pleased that this article about a vital, but often overlooked, bit of RPG history has done so well. Web Warlock (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)