Talk:Moonrise (novel): Difference between revisions
Geometry guy (talk | contribs) Update AH post GAR delist |
Geometry guy (talk | contribs) →FA possibility?: Prescient |
||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
This is a ''long'' way from FA, and probably barely GA standard. --[[User:Jbmurray|jbmurray]] ([[User talk:Jbmurray|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jbmurray|contribs]]) 01:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
This is a ''long'' way from FA, and probably barely GA standard. --[[User:Jbmurray|jbmurray]] ([[User talk:Jbmurray|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jbmurray|contribs]]) 01:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
: A prescient warning. The article has now been delisted. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 21:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:23, 19 April 2009
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | Moonrise (novel) was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other
I think the section 'Other' should be named something different. Perhaps 'Major events' would work. I will change it tomorrow if no one objects to this. Shrewpelt (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
GA Passed
This article has passed the GA noms. It is well balanced and well-cited to show factual accuracy. The next steps would be to expand the reception, and development sections. If you feel that this review was in error feel free to take this article to WP:GA/R. Thanks. Tarret talk 21:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
FA possibility?
Does anyone want to try to see if this article can be made an FA candidate? We could request a peer review and see if there's anything that is clearly missing, and then, when that's done, give it a try as an FAC. Personally, I think the more novel FAs there are, the better for everyone, and this is already at GA class. John Carter (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'll put in a peer review request after I check with the main contributors. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Probably all that needs to be done is the expansion of some of the sections and copyediting. After that, it could reach FA. Shrewpelt (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a long way from FA, and probably barely GA standard. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- A prescient warning. The article has now been delisted. Geometry guy 21:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)