Talk:Dragons of Winter Night

Renaming?

If this article is to stay, it should be renamed to Dragons of Winter Night. However, I don't really think we should add such extensive information. The article should be shortened and appended to a new Chronicles Trilogy article. -- ReyBrujo 20:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

People interested in improving the quality of this article should go to Talk:Dragons_of_Autumn_Twilight to read the discussion going on (and participate, if they have anything to add), about what is wrong with the three articles about the individual books of the Dragonlance Chronicles trilogy. --Peter Knutsen 08:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Major Themes

Can anyone figure out and find a solid reference for the theme? DoomsDay349 17:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I am in the last two or three pages of this book in the Annotated Chronicles, and don't remember the authors stating which was the main theme. I do remember (because I read it today) that Margaret and Tracy stated this is their favourite book in the series. -- ReyBrujo 17:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Does Amazon.com count as a solid reference? If it does, then I can get a theme for this book and DoSD. DoomsDay349 17:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. It depends on who builds their review. I guess you could state something like According to Amazon.com, friendship plays a major theme in this book... or something alike. -- ReyBrujo 18:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll get to it later. I'm gonna start focusing primarily on Dragons of Autumn Twilight, hopefully I can get it up to B-Class. DoomsDay349 19:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

B-Class

Give it a better cover picture and some discussion of "Literary significance & criticism" and that would get this to B-Class. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

Needs to improve its headings, and needs to cut down on the jumbo blocks of text that people will rarely read. Auroranorth 12:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

I've brought this to GA review on the basis that the reasons for failing were of little help and borderline unreasonable do to that fact. I'd like a second assessment of the article, and better comments if it fails. DoomsDay349 23:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It would appear consensus from GA/R is to re-add this article to the list of candidates. I would suggest it's fairly safe to do so. Orderinchaos78 13:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Have followed this up - article is now relisted. Orderinchaos78 13:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; I've been really bust elsewhere lately. DoomsDay349 02:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Er... you do realise if I fail you again, you'll be in deep water? Auroranorth 12:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and follow due process. A statement like the above really doesn't contribute to community consensus. Orderinchaos78 17:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviewers don't get to review their own reviews. Hesperian 04:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:CON. Auroranorth 06:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

How does consensus relate to your argument here? DanielT5 13:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is there an argument going on here? The simple matter is that it was not reviewed correctly before, and needs to be reviewed again. There's nothing more to discuss. Nowhere at all did Doomsday say he was going to review this article again. Consensus matters because that's what is giving this article another chance. Cut to the change--review the article, and quit with the bureaucracy. Ddcc 19:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

<-

You've misunderstood. Auroranorth reviewed it and failed it. Doomsday requested a review. Auroranorth threatened to "fail you again". I pointed out that the original reviewer doesn't get to review his own review. Auroranorth responded with a link to WP:CON, which DanielT5 quite rightly pointed out doesn't make any sense. Hesperian 02:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This conversation kinda lost itself on me. Or something like that. I don't believe the original reviewer is allowed to re-review it. Moving on in anticipation of the review... DoomsDay349 01:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Cover

Not sure how much of this comes from my lack of knowledge (and my lack of knowledge of WHERE to research to learn how to do this myself).... Anyway...

Someone recently swapped the Dragons of Autumn Twilight covers around and put the first edition at the top. That's okay, no big deal, but they didn't update the artist name. When I attempted to, it changed the artist name on THIS page, even though the most recent cover art is still in the box. Oops. I changed it back until I know what I'm doing. Since then, someone else has changed the artist name on the Autumn Twilight page, and once again it changed the artist name on THIS page, even though the recent cover art is still in the box, i.e., the same mistake I made.

I can swap the covers - no problem -- but long term, I need to know how to change one without changing the other. MP Samhain 21:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If you change the data on the image page, it will reflect changes. You can just change the artist name by simply editing the article, and just change where it says artist name. Ddcc 22:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll do that. By the behavior, it seemed as though I was altering a template. Was I? MP Samhain 03:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The infobox that is created is a template, however, the different fields are filled in differently on different articles, so there should be no "mirroring" between articles. Ddcc 04:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what's weird. "Spring Dawning" has been changed to Larry Elmore, but I didn't change it, and I can't see in the History where *anyone* changed it. But up until I modified the artist name under "Autumn" from Matt Stawicki to Larry Elmore, the artist name under "Spring" was listed as Stawicki. MP Samhain 17:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

GA Failed: Extensive notes

When comparing this article to the criteria listed in WP:WIAGA, and relevent fiction guidelines WP:FICT and WP:WAF, I have unfortunately had to fail this article's GA nomination. Here is my rationale for failure:

• Broadness of coverage (criteria 3 at WP:WIAGA): The article falls short in both aspects of this criteria.
  • It does not adequately address all major aspects of the topic. Per WP:WAF, articles should cover a work of fiction from an out of universe perspective. Many aspects which may be covered about a fiction article (but are not here) include:
    • Design & development of the work
    • real world factors that influenced the work of fiction
    • sales figures
    • critical analysis of the subject
    • reception by critics
    • influence of the work
  • It strays unnecessarily into trivia. Specifically, again per WP:WAF
    • Plot summaries should be treated briefly. This article is more than 70% plot summary. That is hardly "brief".
• Referencing (criteria 2 at WP:WIAGA): This article has NO references from sources unconnected to the book itself. All references are either a) the book, or b) from the publishers of the book. Per WP:WAF, while plot summaries should be cited to the work itself, other material that should be used to help write the article include, in part,:
  • Critical reviews
  • Press coverage
  • Sales figures
  • Third party analysis.

This article could become a Good Article if it took an out of universe perspective as favored by the Wikipedia Manual of Style entry at WP:WAF and the Fiction Notability Guidelines at WP:FICT. The plot summary should be reduced to maybe 1-2 paragraphs, and the article could be fleshed out with third-party sources on sales, critical review, and significance. Please feel free to renominate once these fixes are made. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yowch. That's a harsh one, mate. But I thank you, very much so. The last failure for this had a really crappy review, and you've given me more than enough to work on. However, I must tell you something. Being published in the early-mid 80s, there's little to no info on reviews, sales figures, etc., etc. I can, if you like, get a post from the official forums by Margaret Weis herself that proves this. A lot of the things you'd expect (magazine reviews, etc., etc.,) are impossible to find now. With that said, there's still a number of other things. I'd appreciate some info reflecting this. No one likes to see their article fail (obviously) but you were so much more fair than the last reviewer (who's been repeatedly banned, incidentally). Thanks! DoomsDay349 20:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that any additional information from the authors would be GREAT, and would go towards putting this article's siginficance in the real world into this article. Beyond that, I must admit that bringing this article up to standard may be very difficult. Unfortunately, I can only apply the criteria as it is written, WP:WAF is pretty clear on how an article about a work of fiction should be handled. I want to be clearer that not every single item on the list need be included; these kinds of things are suggestions on how to make the article's content relate to the real world (and not its own) and thus comply with WP:WAF. I will admit that novels of this type tend to have very little web content to draw from. However, and I don't want this to sound too harsh, the sources for this information DO exist. Sci-fi/Fantasy mags DID review this book when it came out. The authors have discussed it in said journals. Though difficult to find, it is probably not impossible. Libraries keep this kind of stuff on microfiche, the publishers of the mags, if still published, probably maintain back issues. Again, it depends on how much effort can be put into this, but it is possible to get this information. Does it make this article much harder to bring up to Good Article status than some others? Yes, unfortunately it does. But that doesn't mean that it can't be done. Again, I don't mean to sound disparaging; there is nothing inherently wrong with a sci-fi/fantasy book in general that means that it is more difficult to bring up to GA status. This article is another story. However, we cannot ignore or alter the Good Article criteria simply because meeting them is harder for some articles than others. Good luck, and if there is anything I can do to help, let me know. Happy editing. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)