Wikipedia:Peer review/Ravenloft (D&D module)/archive2

Ravenloft (D&D module)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to get it up to FA-Class and would like some more comments before nominating it. It does have a previous FAC archived here, and I think that I've resolved everything mentioned there.

Thanks, -Drilnoth (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. We received no manual feedback the last time this was filed for peer review, so we would appreciate it if someone could provide some comments this time. Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be patient - it can take up to two weeks to get a review. This is on the PR backlog list, so someone will get to it in a few days, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Patience, I can do. :) BOZ (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

I would treat the FAC as a very detailed peer review - there were lots of comments there that need to be examined carefully. I would also treat things mentioned as examples and make sure that there are not other examples to be fixed in the article. Once you think everything has been fixed or at least addressed, I would then ask some of the FAC reviewers if they would take a second look at the article to see if they agree that things have been improved.
To me the article seems under-referenced. There are several paragraphs and even sections without refs (the first paragraphs of the "Original edition" and "House of Strahd" sections and the entire "Master of Ravenloft" section have no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
Per WP:CITE references generally come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase.
There are a lot of short (one or two sentence) pargraphs and even a few short sections - to improve the article flow, these should generally be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
Much of the article consists of descritpions of the different versions of the module and sequels, but there is almost no critical reception information for these (except for the review of Ravenloft II).
This While the I6 Ravenloft module is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Ravenloft campaign setting sets, the timeline given suggests that the campaign settings are set a couple hundred years after the events of the module would have played out.[note 2] and the note seem to be a bit too in-universe, see WP:IN-U

Hope this helps and thanks for your patience. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC) 2[reply]

Thanks! I'll look into some of those. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I put some work into some of the items you mentioned. That's a very excellent idea of contacting the reviewers after we have worked on the article, prior to re-nominating it for FAC. :) I didn't notice any instances where citations did not come after punctuation, or at the end of a sentence or phrase, so let me know if I've missed something. BOZ (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]