Talk:Technomancer Press
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Technomancer Press (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. |
Contents |
[edit] History of Good Article Candidacy
[edit] First GA nomination failed
This article was listed at WP:GAN but no notice was put on this talk page. I have removed the listing because a quick look reveals that though a good start it is not yet of GA quality.
- First, the lead needs to be expanded per the suggestions of WP:LEAD.
- Secondly the article should be slightly reorganized to have fewer, longer sections and the detailed list of products should probably be axed.
- Some of the writing should also be looked at to make sure that it maintains NPOV. Sentences like The company focuses on providing high quality content at prices well below that of the competition. sound to much like they came from the company's public relations office. Who says their content is high quaility?
- A few more references would be nice. One per section is a rule of thumb used by several GA reviewers. I would like to see about 5 in an article this size.
- Care needs to be taken with using and attributing quotes. The big quote from the FAQ is probably longer than necessay and the citation doesn't really make clear that it is sourcing the quote rather than the fact that they don't use the d20 logo.
Like a said, good overall just not a GA yet. Eluchil404 00:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Second GA nomination
[edit] Second GA Nomination Made After Revision on Sept. 17
Revised and Renominated Archer904 19:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Second GA Nomination Failed
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of September 24, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: Pass
- 2. Factually accurate?: Fail
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Fail
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
- 5. Article stability? Pass
- 6. Images?: Almost pass
Additional comments :
- Could there be a fair use rationale stated for the picture in the article?
-
- You bet. Done. Archer904 23:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- The section Business Model needs to be sourced.
-
- Fixed. Archer904 23:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- The article needs more wikilinks.
-
- Totally fixed. Archer904 23:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- In the Products section, the article is too technical for the neophytes ... more wikilinking to other articles would smooth out some of this technicallity.
-
- Done. Archer904 23:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- It is impossible to know if the Products are books or something else maybe clarifying that would help.
-
- Fixed Archer904 23:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- This sentence One of its strongest features is its development of a community of review and interest in one another's projects. needs to be polished to make it easier to understand.
-
- Fixed Archer904 23:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Their position in open gaming isn't really mentioned.
-
- Fixed. Archer904 23:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Their book publishing isn't explained thoroughly, especially the thing about the thermal binding that is explained in their FAQ section.
-
- Fixed Archer904 23:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Even though what was done for the article was really good, it still lacked in some areas I thought were important for GA status. Please ask questions on my talk page or in the GA page if you disagree, want more information or would like to have a word with me. Good luck! Lincher 21:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Second look at the article
- IMO, the lead section is too big but some would consider it just right, I would cut down on the last paragraph to shorten the prose and tidy up the d20 system comment as this now sounds like it is the most important information of that company.
- It still feels like the products aren't book-like objects. You can see the ConQuests: Four Ready-to-Go Adventures for Those Short on Time section to understand what I mean, it now sounds more like a boardgame or an adventure quest map.
- If you feel there should be more on the Kajigi, Inc. company, feel free to add it because it may pertain to the article's breadth.
With that I think 1) you'll have stuff to work on and 2) you won't have to worry about the GA process afterwards. Best of luck, Lincher 00:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Third GA Nomination
Passed : Much tighter, much nicer and more coverage of the topic. Nice re-work of the article. It might still need more stuff but the project the article discuss is in its infancy and so requires almost talking with the people at Technomancer Press to get more into the article. Cheers, Lincher 01:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
