Knowledge (XXG)

:Good article reassessment/Forgotten Realms/1 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

203:. 38 of the 77 references in the article—just under half—are primary sources: rulebooks, storefronts, product databases, interviews, and so on. Those sources also tend to get used repeatedly. Plenty of sentences and entire paragraphs, particularly about in-universe subjects and product releases, are entirely unreferenced. This article should be overhauled and based primarily on what reliable, third-party published sources have written about the subject. It's fine to fill in some minor non-controversial details with primary sources, but right now this is more of a Wikia fan page than a Knowledge (XXG) Good Article. 250:
There are still huge sections of text in the Creative origins and Settings sections supported largely by primary sources, and much of the Publication history section is supported by industry sources. I also see a handful of "academic" sources that are cited here but essentially nowhere else online,
219:
I removed a few of the primary sources that were redundant to non-primary sources, and will try to find some non-primary sources to add to what is already there and/or replace more of the primary sources. I also removed some of the unsourced information, particularly the basic listings of products
283:
It's a bummer, to be sure. I've loved the setting ever since I got the 1987 "Grey Box" a few years after its release. I've been looking for sources and it seems like the renaissance we're in has improved mainstream coverage of the game itself, but it's all surface-level coverage that ignores the
124:
It is clear that since it was accepted as a Good Article in 2009, Knowledge (XXG) standards have changed. The article is full of fictional cruft, with "The World" section being largely in-universe. Much of the "History" section is also just a timeline of releases rather than putting things in
185:
If an editor is going to call for a reassessment then one would think it would be incumbent on that editor to specify which criteria the article does not meet, and why.
69: 235:
Some work has gone into the article over the past month. Does anyone have any suggestions on what else needs to be done as far as improvements?
65: 17: 50: 42: 125:
context. It strikes me as C-class at most and would need a significant amount of work to reach modern Good Article standards.
106: 293: 278: 264: 244: 229: 212: 194: 156: 138: 117: 269:
Fair enough; I accept that this one is probably beyond my ability to fix at this time or in the foreseeable future.
90: 190: 162:
I had a careful read of the article last night and it satisfies the good article criteria in that it is:
58: 186: 289: 260: 208: 132: 144: 102: 35: 312: 99:: Delist: 2 months without activity. Please improve this article and bring it back to GAN! 147:
and I have been working on improving the article; we will see what we can do with it.
306: 285: 274: 256: 240: 225: 204: 152: 128: 111: 270: 236: 221: 148: 255:
independent sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?
220:
without context. I will see what else I can do with it this morning.
251:
including by other reliable sources. Are there actually so few
85: 77: 46: 8: 18:Knowledge (XXG):Good article reassessment 7: 169:Verifiable with no original research 24: 86:Watch article reassessment page 1: 118:11:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC) 329: 294:00:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC) 279:23:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC) 265:23:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC) 245:22:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC) 230:14:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC) 157:17:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC) 139:21:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC) 213:12:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC) 195:09:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC) 172:Broad in its coverage 91:Most recent review 136: 320: 145:User:Sariel Xilo 127: 114: 100: 88: 82: 73: 54: 28:Forgotten Realms 328: 327: 323: 322: 321: 319: 318: 317: 303: 302: 137: 112: 95: 84: 63: 40: 34: 31: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 326: 324: 316: 315: 305: 304: 301: 300: 299: 298: 297: 296: 233: 232: 216: 215: 187:AugusteBlanqui 183: 182: 179: 176: 173: 170: 167: 160: 159: 126: 122: 121: 120: 93: 30: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 325: 314: 311: 310: 308: 295: 291: 287: 282: 281: 280: 276: 272: 268: 267: 266: 262: 258: 254: 249: 248: 247: 246: 242: 238: 231: 227: 223: 218: 217: 214: 210: 206: 202: 199: 198: 197: 196: 192: 188: 180: 177: 174: 171: 168: 165: 164: 163: 158: 154: 150: 146: 143: 142: 141: 140: 134: 130: 119: 116: 115: 108: 104: 98: 94: 92: 87: 81: 80: 76: 71: 67: 62: 61: 57: 52: 48: 44: 39: 38: 33: 32: 29: 26: 19: 252: 234: 200: 184: 166:Well written 161: 123: 110: 96: 78: 74: 60:Article talk 59: 55: 36: 27: 181:Illustrated 47:visual edit 284:settings. 307:Category 286:Woodroar 257:Woodroar 205:Woodroar 175:Neutral 129:ZXCVBNM 70:history 51:history 37:Article 313:GAR/65 201:Delist 178:Stable 113:buidhe 97:Result 253:truly 79:Watch 16:< 290:talk 275:talk 261:talk 241:talk 226:talk 209:talk 191:talk 153:talk 133:TALK 66:edit 43:edit 271:BOZ 237:BOZ 222:BOZ 149:BOZ 309:: 292:) 277:) 263:) 243:) 228:) 211:) 193:) 155:) 109:) 105:· 89:• 83:• 68:| 49:| 45:| 288:( 273:( 259:( 239:( 224:( 207:( 189:( 151:( 135:) 131:( 107:c 103:t 101:( 75:· 72:) 64:( 56:· 53:) 41:(

Index

Knowledge (XXG):Good article reassessment
Forgotten Realms
Article
edit
visual edit
history
Article talk
edit
history
Watch
Watch article reassessment page
Most recent review
t
c
buidhe
11:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
ZXCVBNM
TALK
21:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
User:Sariel Xilo
BOZ
talk
17:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
AugusteBlanqui
talk
09:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Woodroar
talk
12:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
BOZ

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.