Dwarves on Wikipedia!

[BOZ]

Hey everybody! What can we do to make Wikipedia's article on the D&D dwarf into a Good Article?

 

[steeldragons]

I'd add in this image, for starters.

The article/information itself seems quite thorough.
--SD

 

[jasper]

I see no problems with the article. What is wrong with it?

 

[Dioltach]

I see no problems with the article. What is wrong with it?

It's a bit short?

 

[BOZ]

I see no problems with the article. What is wrong with it?

Nothing in particular, but Wikipedia articles always have room for improvement. It's going to come up for Good Article review, and I would like to see it succeed, so that's why I'm asking.

 

[Achan hiArusa]

Apparently the Elf article needs a bit of help.

 

[BOZ]

Yep - the dwarf article used to look more like that, so there is always potential.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I see that one of the criticisms on the elf article is that it relies on primary sources. WTF? In most research, primary sources are the most authoritative.

 

[GreyLord]

I see that one of the criticisms on the elf article is that it relies on primary sources. WTF? In most research, primary sources are the most authoritative.

Primary accounts are firsthand accounts. I think the WTF probably occurred with the idea of...how do you get a first hand account of an elf?

 

[BOZ]

"Primary sources" in this case means using sources from or closely affiliated to the publisher. As much as possible on Wikipedia, we want to utilize independent reliable sources. Yeah, in some ways that is kind of bass-ackwards, but that's how people seem to want it so that's how the policies are structured.