![]() | Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 3, 2018. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is very well-written article, but isn't it the Bone Wars that are notable rather than this graphic novel? I see no indication that this graphic novel is notable in any way and almost gave it the "spam" tag. Can you explain? House of Scandal 18:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
In addition, it meets this:
I believe it also passes the "Google test", as poor an indicator as that may be (11,700). I certainly applaud your commitment to notability and trash, but I believe this sits well will several guidelines. Dåvid ƒuchs ( talk • contribs) 22:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. However, note that having an ISBN is an exclusionary guideline rather than an inclusionary one (see Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria). The only one that is possibly met is that the author is notable, barely. As the guidelines themselves state, they are guidelines rather than hard rules. Here are the criteria:
A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets one or more of the following criteria:
What is clear to me is that this article violates the spirit of these rules. This book deserves a mention in the author's article but as it is, this article seems more like an advertisement. House of Scandal 22:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I won't drag it that far as per the Wikipedia guideline "don't be a dick." Not going to AfD with this article is in accordance with my personal Wikipedia motto:
When you have bigger fish to fry, let the small fry go.
To add a third cliché to the mix, I'll try to be part of the solution; what this article is lacking is a mention of Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards from a third party source. I'll try to find one. House of Scandal 00:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
References
Well, this morning, I clicked "edit" and started typing comments on the FAC for this article. One thing led to another and I didn't click "save" until just now, only to discover that the nom was closed and archived in the mean time. I'm copying my comments here in case anyone wants to pursue a future nomination. -- Laser brain ( talk) 18:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
A fine read. Not much else to say. Wrad ( talk) 20:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The sourcing in this article isn't all that great. Almost 3/4 of the footnotes are the book itself, and I'm not sure what makes pages like Bookslut.com or Sequential Tart reliable. If the sourcing is not improved, then I'm taking this to WP:FAR. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 06:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I am marking this Satisfactory at WP:URFA/2020, but the following should be addressed:
Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 3, 2018. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is very well-written article, but isn't it the Bone Wars that are notable rather than this graphic novel? I see no indication that this graphic novel is notable in any way and almost gave it the "spam" tag. Can you explain? House of Scandal 18:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
In addition, it meets this:
I believe it also passes the "Google test", as poor an indicator as that may be (11,700). I certainly applaud your commitment to notability and trash, but I believe this sits well will several guidelines. Dåvid ƒuchs ( talk • contribs) 22:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. However, note that having an ISBN is an exclusionary guideline rather than an inclusionary one (see Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria). The only one that is possibly met is that the author is notable, barely. As the guidelines themselves state, they are guidelines rather than hard rules. Here are the criteria:
A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets one or more of the following criteria:
What is clear to me is that this article violates the spirit of these rules. This book deserves a mention in the author's article but as it is, this article seems more like an advertisement. House of Scandal 22:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I won't drag it that far as per the Wikipedia guideline "don't be a dick." Not going to AfD with this article is in accordance with my personal Wikipedia motto:
When you have bigger fish to fry, let the small fry go.
To add a third cliché to the mix, I'll try to be part of the solution; what this article is lacking is a mention of Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards from a third party source. I'll try to find one. House of Scandal 00:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
References
Well, this morning, I clicked "edit" and started typing comments on the FAC for this article. One thing led to another and I didn't click "save" until just now, only to discover that the nom was closed and archived in the mean time. I'm copying my comments here in case anyone wants to pursue a future nomination. -- Laser brain ( talk) 18:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
A fine read. Not much else to say. Wrad ( talk) 20:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The sourcing in this article isn't all that great. Almost 3/4 of the footnotes are the book itself, and I'm not sure what makes pages like Bookslut.com or Sequential Tart reliable. If the sourcing is not improved, then I'm taking this to WP:FAR. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 06:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I am marking this Satisfactory at WP:URFA/2020, but the following should be addressed:
Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)