Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards/archive1
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 17:25, 29 February 2008.
In a spur of the moment, I started working on this book. I think the background, reception and plot details all are reasonably long and complete the article's scope. --David Fuchs (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "somewhat-fictionalized yet true story" - is it possible to be both? Epbr123 (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded. David Fuchs (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fair use rationale for Image:Bonesharps_cover.jpg does not have all "Necessary components" , as described by WP:RAT. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 03:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rational detailed and specific article added to rationale. David Fuchs (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. Although it's not actually low resolution. I'll tag it for reduction. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rational detailed and specific article added to rationale. David Fuchs (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "had taken no license with the characters" - you mean that he portrayed them strictly realistically right? However, that sentence reads very ambiguously right now (it could mean he didn't take a copyright license on them or something). indopug (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've clarified. David Fuchs (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have thought fixing would have been to remove the word "license" - "creative license" once again there is the "creative commons license" and thus I believe the ambiguity remains.--Kiyarrllston 04:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've clarified. David Fuchs (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. I think it is a well-written article, but since I have very limited experience working with articles on fictional works, I don't feel qualified to judge whether it meets all the plot guidelines, etc. Karanacs (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment.
- Some people don't read the lead, they dive straight into the article. To help them, when a person is first mentioned in the main part of the article, use their full name and wikilink if neccessary. In the same vein, the lead refers to "Cope and Marsh" - can we get their full names/wikilinks please?
- Per WP:MOSQUOTE, don't use callout quotes (with the funky quotation marks), use blockquote instead
Karanacs (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I linked out the scientists names and used blockquotes instead., Das Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.