Talk:Book of Vile Darkness/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   It constantly refers back to other items with words like "As with...", "Like most..." Those are minor though.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Several statements in the Before release section, including quotes, are unsourced. Furthermore, the article fails WP:BK as there is only 1 secondary source noting commenting on it (having the material included in later supplements does not confer notability)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The book lacks reception and coverage. It has too little detail on its reception or impact (impact being on items outside WotC/Hasburo). This means it may have too much backhistory that is trying to make up for the lack of reception/impact.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I believe there was some problems mentioning this book among others for power creep brought into 3.5. However with a lack of independent RSes, it's unclear if this is NPOV issue or just lack of content.

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):

   The rationale should be strengthened; specifically why they are necessary. See Popotan or School Rumble for good examples.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   While there is great background, the article fails WP:BK. It appears the amount of background detail is trying to make up for the lack of real-world impact and reception, but it cannot.