Talk:Dwarf (Dungeons & Dragons)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

• " 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 ^talk_edits 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 ^talk_edits 14:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; 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. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	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 media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	A hearty dwarven pass.