Self-nomination. This is about all editions of the role-playing game. Though failed twice before the last time was a year and a half ago. While similar material overall there has been heavy editing for use of sumary style, referencing and inline citations and many minor corrections. I have been pushing this year to bring article up to FA stardard, including adding vast numbers of citations, pushing through a FA checklist on the talk page and intiating a peer review. I believe it is now ready for FA status and present it to the jury, please be constructive in your critisms. - Waza 04:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment I must admit, I played on and off since 1978 and I'd never seen the abbreviation "DnD"....(I'm still looking)cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 04:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I have seen DnD written like that, but I have certainly heard people say it that way verbally. - Waza 04:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Minor fixes needed before I can support it:
Hit points abreviation lower case (hp), while experience points upper case (XP)? Why the variance?
Yes. In short because these are the most common conventions used by the game itself. This was my gut reaction as to why this discrepancy but I wanted to check several of the references before commenting. Please note that the the early editions of the game (before the late 1980's) were notoriously inconsistent and poorly copy edited themselves.
XP is the consistent abreviation used by several versions of the rulebooks including the currrent core books. The 1st ed AD&D uses variously "x.p." "X.p." and "X.P".
I could hit points is no abbreviated at all in any edition of the core game books. However this apbbreviation is consistantly used across many official adventure modules from all editions as "hp". I found only one variation where "h.p." was used instead, never "HP". This convention seems to have been established early in the history of the game to clearly distinguish Hit Dice (HD) from hit points (hp)
While information on these rarer variations of the abbreviations could be discussed I do not feel the main article is the appropriate place to include that discussion as it would add length to an already long article on a very minor point. More appropriate places to include it would be the articles Game mechanics (Dungeons & Dragons), Experience point and Hit point all of which are linked near where the abbreviation is first given. - Waza 22:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
References should only follow punctuation (preferably periods, though comma or parenthesis acceptable too). These need to be moved per MOS.
Can you please provide a link to where the MOS says this. The only information I could find, Wikipedia:Footnotes#Where to place ref tags, implies to me that footnotes can apply at the end of a "term, phrase,...". It agrees that "When placed at the end of a clause or sentence the ref tag should be directly after the punctuation mark" but nothing says there that they can only be placed after a punctuation mark. - Waza 05:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry but I must disagree, this section merely says "footnotes at the end of a sentence or phrase are placed immediately after the punctuation.", it does not say all footnotes must be after punctuation, merely that ones at the end os scentence must. Also the first section, immediately preceeding the previous quote, says "Some words, phrases or facts must be referenced mid-sentence;" which implies to me that some footnotes may apply only to a particlar word or phrase (which may or may not be followed by punctuation). I agree that if there is punctation the note should follow rather than preceed the punctuation, but it does not therefore follow that all notes must follow punctuation. - Waza 06:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Some parts of Edition History need some copyediting. The paragraph starting "The version called Dungeons & Dragons (1977 - 1999)..." is particularly hard to follow.
I would like to see the section Related products expanded some. D&D has an EXTENSIVE library of video games, liscenced literature, a movie, etc. I am not saying this needs to include everything from the "main" article, but the summary here is a bit TOO terse.
This article was some time ago far too long and an extensive effort was made to cut it down drastically by using summary style. While I agree that if any section was cut too much it was this one. However I am concerned about expanding the article more that it will face critism that it it is too long to be a featured article. If there is a concencus that this section should be expanded I am more than happy to do so but would like some feedback from others before putting in the effort to do this. - Waza 23:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Otherwise, this article is VERY close to feature ready. Great job!--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the constructive comments Jayron32. Except for the second I have already asked for clarification and disagreed on I think the others are all valid points I intend to follow upon. - Waza 07:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. While this is a good piece for what it is, it relies almost exclusively on the source material for its information. Why have none of these, these, these, or these sources been consulted? This would help fill one glaring hole, the treatment of the subject as a business commodity (sales figures are mentioned in the lead, but this should be a much more important part of the article and be mentioned again in the article proper). Also, where is the indication of the critical reaction to the various editions? Surely professional gaming magazines reviewed the rulebooks and main supplements? — Brian (talk) 05:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hadn't thunk of that. Brian has made a very important point. Good luck....cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 07:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Not sure exactly which part(s) of what Brian said Calisber is agreeing with, I am thinking the particularly the first scentence. I find Brian's comments somewhat less than totally clear and open to some interpretation so let me break them down into point form to address them and discuss. Please comment/correct if I am not interpreting your critism correctly.
"it relies almost exclusively on the source material for its information."
While it is true the majority (but not all) of the references section contains primary source material, this section just contains the references apply to the article generally or large sections. References to specific points and small parts only are included in the notes. If there is a concensus that all the references should be extracted from the Notes section and included in the References section then that can be done. My concern about doing this is then the broader references are lost amoungst numberous sources that only apply to one small part of a very broad article.
I'm not sure I understand you. Were the "Further reading" titles used as references? If so, they should be cited as such. Otherwise, it appears as if the article is relying almost entirely on primary source material. — Brian (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Some examples taken from the article listed below, are these not secondary sources? I do want to be proactive on this rather than argumentative, I have already tried gathering more sources on the articles talk page to try and select the best. Please help clarify, is your objection there is not enought referencxes like these, they are not properly included or they are of insufficent quality, type and/or variety
With regard to the further reading they fit into three types. Ones I do not have access to but were there before I started working on the article eg Gygax, Gary. Roleplaying Mastery. New York, NY: Perigee, 1987. ISBN 0-399-51293-4, I did movee some from this section into specific citations. Ones that are interesting related broader reading but don't really reference anything the article has time to discuss eg Wagner, James (March 29, 2000). "Opening the dungeon". Salon. – an article about the conflict over the proprietary or open-source nature of Dungeons & Dragons. And broad topic coverages like Gamespy's 30th Anniversary of Dungeons & Dragons special which specific webpages are included in it are included in the inline references eg Rausch, Allen (2004-08-19). "Dave Arneson Interview". GameSpy. Retrieved 2007-02-23. is currently note #118. -Waza 22:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, now I see. Please add these references to the section named "References". I was scanning that section, and everything had either "TSR" or "Wizards of the Coast" after it, so it seemed the entire article was being sourced from primary sources. If these other books and articles were used as references, they should be listed in the proper section (in addition to being referenced in the footnotes). As for "Further reading", I tend to dislike such sections—if something isn't important enough to use as a proper reference, it's not important enough to list. But I won't object over the presence of the list. — Brian (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Most simply because the vast majority of these sources are not relevant or equally good relevant sources are already contained in the article. Many of the titles listed on these pages contain only brief mentions of D&D in passing while talking about other topics. A large bulk of these titles deal with two topics "Video Games" of which D&D has clearly been an influence on many, and studies of some of the controversies, particularly alledged links to Satanism, and Psycological disorder (including suicide). Both of these are small parts of this article but have their own aricles to expand the topic. Other examples of these references include a book on buying fiction books for libraries, which includes a small section on D&D related novels, and a tertiary level statitics text book which uses some D&D damage as examples to illustrate some of the priciples it is teaching. Useful for showing the extent of how far D&D has penetrated our culture, but I doubt even if they were used provide much insight into the game D&D. Some may be useful in related articles like Dungeons & Dragons related products, Dungeons & Dragons controversies and List of Dungeons & Dragons popular culture references so in the sense could also be used in the brief summaries of these topics in the main article.
I just used Google Books and Scholar as an example to show that D&D has received extensive treatment in secondary sources. I doubt that all of the sources Google turned up deal with D&D only in passing or in ways that are not useful to this article. My main point was, "Where are the secondary sources?" D&D is the granddaddy of RPGs; this article should have plenty of sources from which to draw information that go beyond the source material itself. — Brian (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
"fill one glaring hole, the treatment of the subject as a business commodity"
Firstly after looking at numerous of the links above I found none that did contain, or even likely appeared that they would if I got the full version not just the preview, any of information that what help fill what is called here a "glaring hole". While I agree this could be an interesting hole to cover, I don't believe it is glaring nor is it one that could ever be filled. The problem is the companies that made D&D, TSR and WoTC/Hasbro, don't release much detailed information about the breakdown of their business to seperate D&D from their other products. I think discusion of the business aspect should be in these company articles with D&D mentioned where appropriate. Some mentions of some divisive business issues are covered in the controversy section.
Well, I respectfully disagree. D&D is a game that is intended to be bought and sold. Without treatment from this angle, the article is not comprehensive. Have you tried to find court reports from cases involving D&D? These are often good sources for this kind of information. — Brian (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
"sales figures are mentioned in the lead, but this should this should be a much more important part of the article and be mentioned again in the article proper"
I agree with the principle that information in the leader should not only be there but expanded in the article. I see this scentence of the leader for establishing the penetration of the game into popular culture. I will try and integrate this into the popular culture section of the article. As for expanding it, I do not believe that is possible de to the reasons given above.
"where is the indication of the critical reaction to the various editions?"
What I believe you are talking about here is the critical reception as a game rather than critism by society which is dealt with elsewhere in the article. Surely the correct place for detailed critism is in Editions of Dungeons & Dragons or even possible future edition specific articles. The editions is already the longested section and any critical appraisal that covers with any integrity the breadth not only of opinions but different versions would surely greatly expand this section, I believe too much for an article written in summary style.
Right, by "critical reaction" I mean reviews in trade magazines and the like. While detailed discussion belongs in the sub-article, as you state, this article makes virtually no mention of how the game has been received in its various editions. Again, this makes the article fail the comprehensiveness test. It's not necessary to go into great detail, but take a look at virtually any featured article on a video game and you will see that this information is essential to an article about a game. — Brian (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
"Surely professional gaming magazines reviewed the rulebooks and main supplements?"
Not as much as one may intially think. As the early editions of the game founded the industry of RPGs there were not many magazines that would cover this and even after several did appear D&D was so dominate they often focused on other things. I agree some more independant magazine ifo would be good to find from early days but these are very hard to fine as most except White Dwarf and Dragon (Both of which are used as sources) had very small distributions and were often little more than zines. Also as per above where they are found they are always reviews of a specific edition only and for that reason not always helpful.
I think the game was originally reviewed and covered in wargaming magazines. The later (and especially last) edition should be covered in magazines such as Pyramid.
The gist of my criticism is that the authors of this article should have started from a different angle: What have others written about D&D? Instead, I see, What have D&D and its owners written about D&D? Reliable, secondary sources should be used and preferred in a case like this. — Brian (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose—1a and other issues. I agree wtih Brian: what's reliable in one topic may not be in another, and with additional print souces available, this article needs to use those sources. In other words, featured articles should use the most reliable souces available. And of course, this is reflected in the fact that the article does not mention the business aspects or reception and criticism. Issues with the prose taken from the lead:
For an article of this length, the lead should only be three paragraphs. I recommend compressing two of the paragraphs, although that might be somewhat difficult in this case. I take that back. The article has at least 40kb of prose, so 4 paras is fine.
I recommend renaming the "Play overview" section to "Gameplay".
"Players of D&D create characters who embark upon imaginary adventures in which they battle monsters, gather treasure, interact with each other, and earn experience points to become increasingly powerful as the game progresses." Try changing "upon" to "on", and perhaps remove "as the game progresses" (as this can be implied already).
"In 1977 the game was split into two different versions: the simpler Dungeons & Dragons and the more complex Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (abbreviated as AD&D or ADnD)." Missing a comma after "In <date>". The word "different" is redundant in this case.
This one had me confused for a while as the corrections you suggest had already been done weeks ago in the body of the article. I found what you were refering to and adjusted as suggested in the leader. - Waza 05:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
"...with an estimated 20 million having played the game and over US$1 billion in book and equipment sales." "Over" should be "more than", which is usually more elegant.
This seems to me that the choice of words here seems more subjective personal preference, however as I have no preference either way I have mde the change suggested. - Waza 05:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
"Dungeons & Dragons is known beyond the game for other D&D branded products, references in popular culture and some of the controversies that have surrounded it, particularly a moral panic in the 1980s linking it to Satanism and suicide." I recommend changing "...known beyond the game for..." to "...also known for...". Might want to consider using the serial comma, especially in this instance (a comma after "references in popular culture" will help make the sentence less confusing). "Some of" can probably be removed to yield a more crisp statement.
There are just examples; please find two or three copy-editors with free time to massage the entire article. It's a very nice article and should not have trouble reaching featured status after these issues have been resolved. — Deckiller 07:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I have attempted to discuss/address concerns about sources, business aspects and critisms in reply to Brian above. With regards to 1a concerns I will address the specific issues you raise even though these are just examples. While I am open to constructive critism on all aspects of the article, I am particlarly open to 1a concerns as I realise that working closely with an article for a time can easily leave one blind to these issues. Do you have any suggestions for how I might find "two or three copy-editors with free time " who would be willing to help? - Waza 02:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Weak support - Overall, I like the state of the article. I have a few nits.
I'd like to see the list of examples from the Influence turned into prose and some justification given for selection of examples. I don't think Hackmaster, for example, is very iconic as far as uses of the older materials.
There are some parentheticals that should be removed or incorporated into the sentences in which they appear. For example: "alignment (a moral and ethical outlook)"
The use of the phrase "Christian Right" in the Controversy and notoriety section only makes sense from an American POV. I would suggest re-wording that to indicate who we're talking about for readers in other countries. -Harmil 04:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Harmil, can you suggest an alternative term to the use of "Christian Right? This is term I suggested to resolve some debate about what to say here. The term is wilinked and I am Australian and have an understanding of the term so it's use, while I agree is primarily associated with the USA has spread beyond it. I think this term describes better those actively opposing D&D than the other previous alternatives "Christians" "Some Christians", "fundamentalist Christians" or "some fundamentalist Christians" - Waza 05:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Waza here. While Christian Right is possibly an Americanism, it is wikilinked, and the term itself is unambiguous. While equivalent or similar groups appear in other countries, the issues raised vis-a-vis D&D and cited in this article were done in America and by those who were conservative Christians.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I would like to see a 'Critical Acclaim' section. With such an addition, I would be prepared to support the application. Axl 20:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. The article is very good but needs a little improvement before being ready for featured status. I believe the writing is generally good, sentence to sentence, and the sourcing is fine. I am also glad to see that this is a self-nom, because that gives me some assurance that someone will read and actually care about my criticisms. My specific complaints:
Image:HugeGoldDragonMini.jpg should be removed: the claim of fair use is invalid. Someone just take a photo of a D&D miniature of their own and put that up under a free license. Note that although the miniature itself and its design may be copyrighted, 2d images of 3d objects are significantly independent. Thus, this image is completely replacable.
Generally, there are enough images and I do think all the images contribute significantly to the article, but their fair use rationales are too generic and don't explain anything. All they say about their particular use is that they "illustrate relevant points in the text", but for each one it should be explained why THAT image is important. For instance, the Chainmail cover should be included as it's important to illustrate what many regard as the first printing of D&D rules (or however you want to phrase it). But right now that isn't explained on the image page and it needs to be.
Remove the paragraph about hp from the game mechanics section; it's unnecessary detail. It might be a good idea, though, to explain what a character class is a little more thoroughly, and to give a bit more description of the magic system.
The article isn't as comprehensive as it should be. In particular, although the article gives a good idea of what the game is, what its sources of influence are and what it has influenced, the controversy, and the publication history, what's missing is any real coverage of the level of popularity of D&D, including the level of adoption and how that has changed over time, and fan reaction to the changes in the official rules. One particularly missing element is the story of D&D's commercial success: the article mentions both that D&D enjoys a very strong market share, and yet also mentions that TSR nearly went bankrupt.
The lead is too long. All the info there is good and well presented, but there should be a way to make a shorter introduction.
Good luck, I hope this ends up passing; I'll be checking back for responses. I particularly like how you handled the popular culture section... now let's just see if we can clean up the pop culture references article! Mangojuicetalk 15:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.