Talk:Joe Dever

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Good article Joe Dever was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
To-do list for Joe Dever: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Wikify.
  • Rewrite Biography.
  • Italicize the names of all books and magazines mentioned in article.
  • Add ISBN numbers to book list.
  • Add footnotes/references to reliable, third-party sources.
  • Add more information, particulary details of work/accomlishments over the past few years.
  • Research for criticism of work.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Joe Dever, has edited Wikipedia as
81.153.165.18 (talk · contribs)


Contents

[edit] Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Joe Dever has failed, for the following reason:

Longer than subject warrentsGhosts&empties 08:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA nomination

This article needs a big overhaul before it is ready for GA status. Here's my overview:

  • Well-written: Failed. Although most of the article is well-written, some of the material is not explained very well for the non-specialist (ex. last paragraph). A link to a Dungeons & Dragons article would be nice, and some quick explanation on terms in the article would help things. I mean, what is the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Championship of America?
  • Referenced: Failed. Several references are questionable, and one is an online forum. Also, it's worth noting that no matter what Joe Dever himself adds to the article, it needs to be referenced. The lead seems to be especially needy of citations.
  • Broad coverage: Failed. It's all good until about halfway through the "Writing" section, where you spend the rest of the article on production, distribution, sales, etc. of his Lone Wolf books. Also, it would be nice if the story of the Lone Wolf books is actually explained.
  • Neutral view: Passed. Nothing much you can say here, although criticism on his work would be appreciated.
  • Stability: Passed.
  • Images: Passed. Your limited use of images is appreciated. (A better mug shot would be nice; you'd think the guy would upload a crisp image of himself.)

Good luck on your work. -Dark Kubrick 02:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA nomination

Many of the issues addressed when this article failed its first nomination have not been corrected.

  • Well-written: Failed. There is still material in the article that is not explained, and the article is not wikified enough. Wikification of certain words/phrases (like Dungeons & Dragons) would be helpful to the readers, some of whom may not know what that is. Additionally, the current style of wikification has a couple issues. For example, under the Biography heading, "nephrectomy" is wikified twice. After the second appearance, it's briefly explained "(removal)". The point of the wikification is to explain it, therefore the removal explination need not be there, and the word should also only be wikified once. The Biography section is haphazard and does not read well. Books, magazines and the like should be italicized throughout the article. I also recommend, if possible, adding the ISBN numbers to the list of books.
  • Factually acurate: Failed. There are statements throughout the article that need to be referenced and particularly in the lead section. It is unacceptable that the entire lead have no references. When referencing PDF files, the page on which the information is found should be included in the citation. Furthermore, the issues mentioned in the failed nomination have not all been addressed. Online message boards are not reliable sources, and one should not rely too heavily on the websites of the article's subject. Therefore, few—if any—of the cited references are reliable. If reliable sources cannot be found, the notability of the subject is in question.
    • Reference 1 does not appear to be from a reliable source.
    • Reference 2 claims to be of Role-Player Independent Magazine, however, the page clearly states that the full interview is in the magazine. That is simply an abridgement copied into a newsletter located on the website of the subject of the article.
    • Reference 3 has a technical formatting error, thus it can not be retrieved. Regardless, it's just more information pulled from the subject's own website.
    • Reference 4 is from a message board.
    • Reference 5 is a 404 NOT FOUND.
    • Reference 6 does not, in any way, appear to be reliable. It's cited as Warlock Magazine, but is actually an e-zine.
    • Reference 7 is from the subject's own website, 76-page PDF file with no reference to what page information is found on.
    • Reference 8 is from the website of the subject's co-author.
    • Reference 9 (see ref 1 explination above).
    • Reference 10 is in spanish and appears to be a message board or blog.
    • Reference 11 is the same website as 10, although reply from subject is in english. Nothing on page states Heirloom Publishing, as claimed in reference list.
    • Reference 12 is from a message board (same one as ref 4).
    • Reference 13 is from the subject's own website.
  • Broad coverage: Failed. Again, the suggestions in the failed nomination do not seem to have been addressed. "Other Creations" lacks information. Under "Computer and video game design" it shows that he's been working during the past few years, but there's not much detail of it in this article.
  • Neutral point of view: Failed. Article lacks criticism of his work and makes unreferenced statements.
  • Stability: Passed.
  • Images: Passed. Although, I agree with the previous assessment that the main photo is not a good one. If possible, a sharper image should replace it. I also think the article would benefit from a Lone Wolf image considering that seems to be his biggest success.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. --LaraLoveTalk/Contribs 17:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lone Wolf Wiki!

I have created it, and we already have 104 articles!!! Come and join us in putting all the cool facts and interesting info back into Lone Wolf :) [1] Judgesurreal777 12:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)