Talk:White Plume Mountain/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA and will list my comments below. I did a little copy editing for punctuation. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• One judge described it as a "the puzzle dungeon to end all puzzle dungeons." - what does this mean?

• Added context.[1]

• He said "Heck, you could chuck out the first two" and White Plume Mountain would still be a "classic" - I am a little uncomfortable seeing two quotes strung together as if they were said at once. (Maybe they were, but it could also be WP:SYN.)

• I put in the full quote.[2]

• "Plot summary" - I do not think this is complete enough for a general reader unfamiliar with the game to make any sense of.

• I removed some excessive detail and expanded the setion.

• conform with v3.5 rules - you have not given any context for rule versions

• I added links to Editions of Dungeons & Dragons and explained a bit in the text.[3]

• the classic weapons associated with them (Blackrazor, Whelm and Wave for White Plume Mountain, Frostrazor for Return to White Plume Mountain) - have you mentioned these before or am I missing something?

• They were mentioned in the plot section, but I've now mentioned them some more.

• the "Reception" section seems rather skimpy and bland considering "White Plume Mountain was ranked the 9th greatest Dungeons & Dragons adventure of all time."

• I added some quotes to the recepton section, and fixed the quote in the quote box. Hopefully this sexes it up a bit.

• The pix - —Mike Mearls describing the adventure's "crazy fun" in Dungeon magazine - this doesn't make any sense to me. At first I thought it was a mistake until I checked back in the history and saw that it has always been that way.

• I'm not sure what happened there. I fixed it.

• All in all this does not seem like a comprehensive description of this module. It does not match the completeness of your prior articles on modules.

—Mattisse (Talk) 21:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I'll get right on it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• who described it as the "amusement park of dungeons" with a story similar to the A-Team or The Equalizer - I don't think this is helpful in the lead. First, quotes should be avoided in the lead. Secondly, if the reader does not know the A-Team or The Equalizer it means nothing. And even if the reader does, the reader would have to puzzle out what the quotation means in this context. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I've addressed your comment. This article was definitely lacking, and your comments have again led to a big improvement. If you have any other comments or concerns, I look forward to them. Thank you. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Much improved! However:
• too many unnecessary quotes in "Reception" section
• why repeat "crazy, over the top, pure fun" in the text, then right next to it in the caption? What does it really say?
• what does this really say: "Further, he said that while it was not as brutal as Tomb of Horrors, it made up for it with "crazy, over the top, pure fun"? Pure fun makes up for a lack of brutality? Makes those of us who are general readers wonder!

—Mattisse (Talk) 01:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I added a clarifying statement for the brutallity quote, and reduced the amount of quoting overall. The crazy fun quote is now used just once. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• If the cover is by Jeff Dee, should you not note that on the image, since it is copyrighted? —Mattisse (Talk) 03:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I added that, and info on the current copyright holder. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• Although you mention the art work and cover art in the lede, you do not follow through in the article body. Art work and cover are not mentioned thereafter, and you do not reference it.

—Mattisse (Talk) 03:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• • It's in the second sentence of the first paragraph of the Publication history section. But, there's more than one interior artist, and I only had a ref for Jeff Dee and not Erol Otus. I'll fix it up. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I took care of it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment

I just wonder why you do not credit Jeff Dee in the pix caption, like Spider-man does. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Well, in any event, you got the article together. Good work. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

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:

   Pass/Fail:

Congratulations!

—Mattisse (Talk) 00:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Great! :) I added a caption, although the formatting may need a tweak. BOZ (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much Mattisse. Your comments really improved the article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)