Wikipedia:Peer review/Bunnies & Burrows/archive1
- 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 September 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
- I would like to see this article be as finely tuned as possible before submitting it for featured article review. I would like constructive critisism: harsh, blunt, what ever form it takes.
Thanks, Turlo Lomon (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
- I like Watership Down very much and am intrigued by this - is there anything on Richard Adams' reaction to the game? Was there any talk of suing the authors of the game for copyright infringement? Similar thoughts for D&D vs. B&B - is the name based on D&D - sure seems like it.
- Good comments. I'll start here. Copywrite doesn't apply because there is nothing copywritten that was copied. The game is inspired/based by Watership Down, but it is not the same storyline, so copywrite wouldn't apply. D&D is a trademark, not a copywrite, and a similiar name is not copywrite infringement (or trademark infringement for that matter). If the game was Dragons & Dungeons, you might have something. Since neither of these are fact, they don't have a place in the article. Turlo Lomon (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I do think if you have a reliable source commenting on the similarity of the name B&B to D&D, that could be included. Otherwise it is OR and out. Would be cool if Adams has made any comments on the game. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Good comments. I'll start here. Copywrite doesn't apply because there is nothing copywritten that was copied. The game is inspired/based by Watership Down, but it is not the same storyline, so copywrite wouldn't apply. D&D is a trademark, not a copywrite, and a similiar name is not copywrite infringement (or trademark infringement for that matter). If the game was Dragons & Dungeons, you might have something. Since neither of these are fact, they don't have a place in the article. Turlo Lomon (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have read the article twice and do not really understand what a game / campaign is like. What do the players do / what are the goals in a game - to establish a new warren? to find mates? to wander across the English countryside? (all ideas like Watership Down)
- Your suggestions are possibilities. That is the interesting thing about RPGs. The game takes the players where ever they and the gamemaster wants it to go. A campaign could be a Bunny Fu kick boxing tournament if they wanted to. Previous reviewers had requested the gameplay section be cut down. Any suggestion on what a campaign would be like would fall under OR, as there is no "right" answer. Turlo Lomon (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I still think more could be said on the 8 abilities and 9 classes. I know in D&D there were canned campaigns available, are there any model adventures in the rules as a starter or canned campaigns that could be described? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Your suggestions are possibilities. That is the interesting thing about RPGs. The game takes the players where ever they and the gamemaster wants it to go. A campaign could be a Bunny Fu kick boxing tournament if they wanted to. Previous reviewers had requested the gameplay section be cut down. Any suggestion on what a campaign would be like would fall under OR, as there is no "right" answer. Turlo Lomon (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- A possible problem at FAC would be the refs - do they meet WP:RS? What makes http://ptgptb.org/0003/hist3.html a relaible source, for example?
- Because it is a published magazine. Have you checked out the entire site? Turlo Lomon (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, did not realize it was a magazine - just looked like a personal site when I went to it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Because it is a published magazine. Have you checked out the entire site? Turlo Lomon (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Can you explain what "GURPS" means / stands for?
- Generic Universal Roleplaying System. That is why the word is linked. GURPS is the proper name. However, I see your point. That last sentence could be expanded a bit. I will work on it. Turlo Lomon (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- The "See also" section generally does not repeat links that are already in the article, but Watership Down is definitely linked, not sure about the GURPS links.
- I will look at this. Turlo Lomon (talk)
- Try to avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs - combine them with others or perhaps expand them
- Gotcha. I will look at this as well. Turlo Lomon (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Publications section - these may need more information - place of publication for books, for example. See WP:CITE
- I will review this again and see what was missed. Information is kind of lacking on a book out of print for over 30 years. Turlo Lomon (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Article is very short for a FA. While length is not a FA requirement, comprehensiveness is in WP:WIAFA and this may need to be more comprehensive. Dungeons & Dragons is a FA and may be a good model article for ideas and examples to follow.
Hope this helps. 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 ><>°° 02:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Your comments were very useful. Thank you for them. I will be sure to take a whack at helping other editors out in peer review. Turlo Lomon (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would also try to avoid "now" - for example in ... this edition is now long out of print. could be something like ... this edition is long out of print as of 2008. Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Your comments were very useful. Thank you for them. I will be sure to take a whack at helping other editors out in peer review. Turlo Lomon (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- Per the MOS, link titles shouldn't be in all capitals.
- Either list your authors last name first or first name first, pick one style and be consistent.
- Current ref 15 is lacking a publisher.
- http://translate.google.com/translate?sourceid=navclient&hl=en&u=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2eroliste%2ecom%2fdetail%2ejsp%3fid%3d8166 is a google translation, just link to the original.
- Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 14:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)