Talk:Dwarf (Dungeons & Dragons)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Dwarf (Dungeons & Dragons) has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
January 23, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dungeons & Dragons-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, or join the discussion, where you can join the project and find out how to help!
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Article merged: See old duergar talk-page here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drilnoth (talkcontribs) 12:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Modifying release information[edit]

I'm still dreaming of getting this to good article somehow, and the release portion of the article seems too dull in presentation. Maybe we could figure out specific changes for all the different rules to explain? I only own copies of the Mentzer D&D sets, the 2nd Edition books, and the 3rd edition books. An explanation of the progression and changes could be good, but I'd need some help to fill in the rest of the details from other sets. Comments? —Torchiest talkedits 03:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It would help (a whole lot!) if we could find some sources for that sort of info. BOZ (talk) 04:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think we can source directly to the game books for that stuff. An example of what I mean is the infravision thing I just added. That skill was renamed to darkvision in later editions. There's got to be some other stuff like that we could add that wouldn't be as detailed as "well they used to get a -2 AC bonus against giants but now they get a +4 attack modifier", but along those lines. —Torchiest talkedits 04:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh right, I see what you mean. Really basic stuff, like the vision abilities, but nothing like bare game stats. BOZ (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dwarf (Dungeons & Dragons)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 14:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review, though I always leaned toward playing humans or half-orcs myself. I'll start with a close readthrough of the article, noting here any initial issues that I can't immediately fix myself, followed by the criteria checklist. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough[edit]

  • " portrayed dwarves as "beardless and even attractive"." --should this be "female dwarves"? Or are all dwarves beardless in 4th edition?
  • "orcs, goblins, gnolls, bugbears and trolls." -- should these be linked?
  • "Dwarves get along fine with gnomes, who are often regarded as close cousins of the dwarven race ... " This isn't a sticking point for this GA review (since it's noncontroversial, and I also happen to know it's correct), but it would be nice to add a citation to this paragraph if possible. Almost any edition of the Player's Handbook should mention this, right?

On first pass, this looks strong to me; well-sourced, clear in prose, and giving a sufficient overview of the topic. Also, I finally know why dwarves are always portrayed as having Scottish accents, which I was actually asking a friend about just a few months ago. Since the action points above are so small, I'll go straight to the checklist and see what's left.

Thanks so much for the review! I've fixed everything except that last item above. I too thought it would be easy to source, but I didn't see anything in my 2E or 3E PHB. I'll have to check again. —Torchiest talkedits 14:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, like I said, it's not controversial enough to fall under criterion 2b, so don't sweat it for this review. It surprises me that that's not readily available--I feel like I've read it a million times-- but I also couldn't say what book it was in. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Haha, yeah, same here. I double checked the third edition, and most of the info was there. I found more details in the 2E Monstrous Manual, so it's good. Thanks again for the review! —Torchiest talkedits 14:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. Prose is clear, spotchecks show no copyright issues.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. A hearty dwarven pass.

Breaking history section into subsections[edit]

I agree with IP 129's comments in their edit summaries. I don't think it's productive to create a bunch of tiny sections when the current section works as a whole. I don't see a good way to make all those small sections more detailed, unless someone were to write a book devoted specifically to the history of the D&D dwarf with lots of interviews with various writers about the process of development over the course of multiple editions. I also agree that this article is a good target for emulation by other D&D articles, rather than one that needs to be changed back to its older format. —Torchiest talkedits 10:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)