Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Hey ItsLassieTime. I think this article is a good start and has some excellent potential, but I don't think it's ready for GA status yet. Rather than fail it right away, however, I wanted to place it On Hold and give you a chance to look over my suggestions. If you like, you can go ahead and try to address them all before I fail the article. My suggestion, however, would be that I fail it for this first time, then you take your time, consult other sources and improve the article at your own pace. Then I'd recommend you nominate it again, during which time I would be more than happy to review it once again. Let me know what you think. But in any event, here are my suggestions.
Right off the bat:
!!! THERE ARE FEW MATERIALS ON LASSIE THAT DON'T REPEAT WHAT HAS ALL READY BEEN STATED IN COLLINS' BOOK. WHAT HAS BEEN PUBLISHED SINCE ITS RELEASE IS ONLY CONCERNED WITH LATER GENERATIONS AND IN MY OPINION NOT REALLY ESSENTIAL TO THIS ARTICLE. PASSING MENTION OF PAL'S DESCENDANTS IS ENOUGH HERE. ItsLassieTime ( talk) 05:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
!!! I CAN'T DO A LOT OF SEARCHING FOR THESE "FACTS" ON THE LASSIE PAGE. I'M SURPRISED YOU'RE REFERENCING UNCITED "FACTS" ON THAT PAGE AS GOSPEL TRUTH AND EXPECT ME TO TRACK THE SOURCES DOWN. WHY IS THAT PAGE CORRECT AND MINE IS NOT? BECAUSE I CITE ONLY ONE RELIABLE SOURCE FROM A RESPECTED PUBLISHING HOUSE PER WP:RELIABLE SOURCES? THAT DOESN'T SEEM FAIR. SLAP ONE OF THOSE "REFERENCES NEEDED" BANNERS ON THE LASSIE PAGE. FOR ALL WE KNOW THEY COULD BE FANTASIES TO SEND ME ON A WILD GOOSE CHASE TO A DEAD END. THE LASSIE PAGE STRIKES ME AS ONE WRITTEN BY SOMEONE INVOLVED IN ONE OF THE LASSIE BREEDING PROGRAMS ANYWAY. !!! ItsLassieTime ( talk) 05:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
!!! BOTH ARE MENTIONED IN COLLINS BOOK BUT I DIDN'T THINK THEY WERE CRITICAL TO THE PAL ARTICLE. RUDD WEATHERWAX OWNED THE DOG AND ITS HIS NAME THAT APPEARS IN THE CREDITS OF THE FILMS AND TELEVISION SERIES -- NOT INN'S. WILL INCLUDE THO. !!! ItsLassieTime ( talk) 05:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
!!! I DON'T HAVE TO CHECK OUT THEIR UNCITED MATERIAL. IF THERE IS A CONTRADICTION THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE EDITOR OF THE LASSIE ARTICLE NOT ME. I'VE CITED MY SOURCES. NOT ALL STATEMENTS IN THE 'LASSIE' ARTICLE ARE SUPPORTED BY THEIR CITATIONS ANYWAY. I'VE FOUND ERRORS IN CHECKING THEIR STATEMENTS AGAINST THEIR SOURCES. IN ALL HONESTY, I DON'T THINK MY ARTICLE ON PAL SHOULD BE DENIED GA STATUS BECAUSE THE EDITORS OF THE 'LASSIE' ARTICLE HAVE NEGLECTED TO CITE THEIR SOURCES ACCURATELY. MY SOURCE IS FROM A RESPECTED PUBLISHING HOUSE. !!! ItsLassieTime ( talk) 05:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
!!! I DOUBT IF THERE'S ANYTHING IN THE BOOK THAT WASN'T SCRUTINIZED BY COLLINS. A GOOGLE BOOK SEARCH REVEALS NOTHING AND THE BOOK IS SO OLD IT'S NOT LIKELY TO BE AVAILABLE IN LIBRARIES. I DOUBT IF I CAN ACCESS IT. I QUESTION WHETHER THE PUBLISHER IS A RESPECTED PUBLISHING HOUSE ANYWAY. IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A VANITY PRESS. COLLINS IS PREFERABLE BECAUSE HE'S A SECONDARY SOURCE, MORE RECENT, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY HE HAS CACHET OF A RESPECTED PUBLISHING HOUSE AS DEFINED IN THE WP RELIABLE SOURCES. !!! ItsLassieTime ( talk) 05:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Pal's descendants:
!!! DONE. HAVE MADE A PARAGRAPH. !!!
!!! MIGHT CONSIDER THIS FOR THE FUTURE, NOT NOW.!!!
!!! ONLY THE DOGS WHO PLAYED LASSIE IN THE ORIGINAL TELEVISION SERIES ARE MENTIONED IN MY LIST. HAVE EDITED THE LIST AND INCLUDED OTHER DESCENDANTS AND THE CONTROVERSIES. !!! ItsLassieTime ( talk) 03:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
General comments:
!!! DONE. !!!
!!! DONE. I'M CONCERNED THERE WILL NOT BE MANY SOURCES COMING FORTH. !!! ItsLassieTime ( talk) 03:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Now, on to some per section comments...
Under MGM's "Lassie" films:
!!! Done. !!!
Under Television series:
!!!DONE. REWROTE WITH FOCUS ON PAL. ELIMINATED SUMMARIES OF PLOTS.!!! ItsLassieTime ( talk) 02:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
!!!DONE.!!! ItsLassieTime ( talk) 02:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Under Death
!!!DONE. SIMPLY DELETED THE POV AS THE DESCRIPTION IS FROM COLLINS AND NOT ATTRIBUTED TO A SPECIFIC PERSON.!!! ItsLassieTime ( talk) 02:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
!!!DONE. REWRITTEN AS SUGGESTED.!!! ItsLassieTime ( talk) 02:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
!!!SOURCES DO NOT STATE HIS CAUSE OF DEATH. MAY BE HIS OWNERS DID NOT WANT THE CAUSE REVEALED. FOR EXAMPLE, THE DOG COULD HAVE DIED AFTER FALLING DOWN A FLIGHT OF STAIRS BECAUSE SOMEBODY LEFT A DOOR OPEN OR SOMETHING.!!! ItsLassieTime ( talk) 02:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
!!!DONE!!! ItsLassieTime ( talk) 02:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Under Film and television:
!!!DONE. HAVE ADDED BOXES.!!! ItsLassieTime ( talk) 01:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
CRITERIA REVIEW: A good article is:
!!! DONE. !!!
!!! DONE. !!!
!!! DONE. !!!
Let me know whether you prefer to leave this On hold and go through the changes, or to have it Fail and renominate it after working on it at your own pace. Once again, if you choose the latter, contact me when you renominate it and I'd be happy to review it again. -- Hunter Kahn ( talk) 00:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
*I THINK THE ARTICLE IS UP TO SNUFF AT THIS POINT WITH THE MANY RECOMMENDATIONS UNDERTAKEN. THE ARTICLE READS WELL AND WHILE NOT UP TO FA STANDARDS AMPLY SATISFIES THE GA CRITERIA. GA STATUS IS NOT CONCERNED WITH AN EXHAUSTIVE TREATMENT OF THE TOPIC AND THIS ARTICLE I BELIEVE INCLUDES AS MUCH AS WILL EVER BE KNOWN ABOUT PAL. SURE, SOME ANECDOTAL MATERIAL MIGHT TURN UP BUT THE MAJOR ASPECTS AND FACTS ARE COVERED HERE.
I'M SEARCHING FOR THE BOOK "THE STORY OF LASSIE". BOOK SERVICES ALIBRIS HAS ONE AVAILALBE FOR $595.00 AND ABEBOOKS HAS THE BRITISH EDITIONS FOR LESS BUT THOSE ARE IN AUSTRALIA, ENGLAND, AND FRANCE. A COUPLE OF THE US EDITIONS ARE FOUND AT $40 AND $60. I CAN'T AFFORD THEM. I'M GOING TO CHECK WITH THE PUBLIC LIBRARY BUT I AM CERTAIN NOTHING WILL BE AVAILABLE IN THE 35 MEMBER LIBRARIES WITHIN MY COUNTY. THEY CAN DO AN INTERLIBRARY LOAN SEARCH. EVEN THEN I'M NOT OPTIMISTIC. LASSIE FANS WOULD HAVE RIPPED-OFF THE BOOK YEARS AGO.
THE MAIN ASPECTS OF THE TOPIC ARE ADEQUATELY COVERED HERE, PROSE IS REASONABLY WELL WRITTEN, NEUTRAL, IMAGES, AND STABLE. IF THE ARTICLE FAILS (AND I CAN'T IMAGINE WHY IT WOULD) I'LL TAKE IT TO COMMUNITY REASSESSMENT. I DON'T WANT A 'FAIL'. I'D RATHER DELIST IT "FOR FURTHER WORK" BECAUSE A 'FAIL' TAINTS AN ARTICLE FOREVER. NO OTHER REVIEWER WILL WANT TO TOUCH IT AND READERS SUSPECT THERE IS SOMETHING TERRIBLY WRONG WITH IT. THE EDITOR IS TAINTED TOO. IT ISN'T WORTH IT. FAILING ARTICLES SERVES NO PURPOSE UNLESS THEY'RE NONSENSE OR DELIBERATE VANDALISM TO IRK REVIEWERS. ARTICLES SHOULD BE UPGRADED OR DELISTED. I'VE FOLLOWED THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND UPGRADED THE ARTICLE. I BELIEVE IT PASSES GA CRITERIA WHICH SPEAKS TO DECENT ARTICLES NOT EXHAUSTIVE ARTICLES. WHILE IT MAY NOT ANSWER EVERYONE'S QUESTIONS IT DOES PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW WHICH IS ALSO ALLOWED AT GA. LET ME KNOW ABOUT YOUR DECISION. DON'T FAIL IT -- I'D RATHER DELIST IT.
ItsLassieTime (
talk)
06:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I saw this article listed at GAC, and I wanted to make a point regarding its referencing. As per Wikipedia:CITE#Including page numbers, specific page numbers should be used for book references. Because the main source for this article is a book, it is important to differentiate which page the cited material comes from, rather than listing a blanket range that covers over one hundred pages. This would also help plump up the number of citations, which at the moment seems rather lacking. María ( habla con migo) 13:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Not quite what I meant, but you're heading in the right direction. See Robert Sterling Yard's refs for an example of what style is typically used with book references. See how the book is listed in full only once (under "References"), and then referred to thereafter in shorthand in each citation under "Notes"? Now, since there's only one book ref used for this article, I would suggest making the first citation (the one after "Pal was judged not of the highest standards and sold as a pet-quality dog") list all of the ref info (author name, year, full title, publisher, ISBN, etc). Then you can use a shorthand ref for the rest of the citations that point to the book: "Collins, pp. 6–7", for example. I hope this helps. Whoops, and the book reference is missing publisher info -- the city. María ( habla con migo) 18:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Now, on to the remaining suggestions...
You're nearly home-free, ItsLassieTime! Keep up the good work!-- Hunter Kahn ( talk) 21:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
A good article is:
Well done, ItsLassieTime. Glad you stuck with this. Congrats for the Pass. -- Hunter Kahn ( talk) 13:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Hey ItsLassieTime. I think this article is a good start and has some excellent potential, but I don't think it's ready for GA status yet. Rather than fail it right away, however, I wanted to place it On Hold and give you a chance to look over my suggestions. If you like, you can go ahead and try to address them all before I fail the article. My suggestion, however, would be that I fail it for this first time, then you take your time, consult other sources and improve the article at your own pace. Then I'd recommend you nominate it again, during which time I would be more than happy to review it once again. Let me know what you think. But in any event, here are my suggestions.
Right off the bat:
!!! THERE ARE FEW MATERIALS ON LASSIE THAT DON'T REPEAT WHAT HAS ALL READY BEEN STATED IN COLLINS' BOOK. WHAT HAS BEEN PUBLISHED SINCE ITS RELEASE IS ONLY CONCERNED WITH LATER GENERATIONS AND IN MY OPINION NOT REALLY ESSENTIAL TO THIS ARTICLE. PASSING MENTION OF PAL'S DESCENDANTS IS ENOUGH HERE. ItsLassieTime ( talk) 05:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
!!! I CAN'T DO A LOT OF SEARCHING FOR THESE "FACTS" ON THE LASSIE PAGE. I'M SURPRISED YOU'RE REFERENCING UNCITED "FACTS" ON THAT PAGE AS GOSPEL TRUTH AND EXPECT ME TO TRACK THE SOURCES DOWN. WHY IS THAT PAGE CORRECT AND MINE IS NOT? BECAUSE I CITE ONLY ONE RELIABLE SOURCE FROM A RESPECTED PUBLISHING HOUSE PER WP:RELIABLE SOURCES? THAT DOESN'T SEEM FAIR. SLAP ONE OF THOSE "REFERENCES NEEDED" BANNERS ON THE LASSIE PAGE. FOR ALL WE KNOW THEY COULD BE FANTASIES TO SEND ME ON A WILD GOOSE CHASE TO A DEAD END. THE LASSIE PAGE STRIKES ME AS ONE WRITTEN BY SOMEONE INVOLVED IN ONE OF THE LASSIE BREEDING PROGRAMS ANYWAY. !!! ItsLassieTime ( talk) 05:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
!!! BOTH ARE MENTIONED IN COLLINS BOOK BUT I DIDN'T THINK THEY WERE CRITICAL TO THE PAL ARTICLE. RUDD WEATHERWAX OWNED THE DOG AND ITS HIS NAME THAT APPEARS IN THE CREDITS OF THE FILMS AND TELEVISION SERIES -- NOT INN'S. WILL INCLUDE THO. !!! ItsLassieTime ( talk) 05:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
!!! I DON'T HAVE TO CHECK OUT THEIR UNCITED MATERIAL. IF THERE IS A CONTRADICTION THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE EDITOR OF THE LASSIE ARTICLE NOT ME. I'VE CITED MY SOURCES. NOT ALL STATEMENTS IN THE 'LASSIE' ARTICLE ARE SUPPORTED BY THEIR CITATIONS ANYWAY. I'VE FOUND ERRORS IN CHECKING THEIR STATEMENTS AGAINST THEIR SOURCES. IN ALL HONESTY, I DON'T THINK MY ARTICLE ON PAL SHOULD BE DENIED GA STATUS BECAUSE THE EDITORS OF THE 'LASSIE' ARTICLE HAVE NEGLECTED TO CITE THEIR SOURCES ACCURATELY. MY SOURCE IS FROM A RESPECTED PUBLISHING HOUSE. !!! ItsLassieTime ( talk) 05:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
!!! I DOUBT IF THERE'S ANYTHING IN THE BOOK THAT WASN'T SCRUTINIZED BY COLLINS. A GOOGLE BOOK SEARCH REVEALS NOTHING AND THE BOOK IS SO OLD IT'S NOT LIKELY TO BE AVAILABLE IN LIBRARIES. I DOUBT IF I CAN ACCESS IT. I QUESTION WHETHER THE PUBLISHER IS A RESPECTED PUBLISHING HOUSE ANYWAY. IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A VANITY PRESS. COLLINS IS PREFERABLE BECAUSE HE'S A SECONDARY SOURCE, MORE RECENT, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY HE HAS CACHET OF A RESPECTED PUBLISHING HOUSE AS DEFINED IN THE WP RELIABLE SOURCES. !!! ItsLassieTime ( talk) 05:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Pal's descendants:
!!! DONE. HAVE MADE A PARAGRAPH. !!!
!!! MIGHT CONSIDER THIS FOR THE FUTURE, NOT NOW.!!!
!!! ONLY THE DOGS WHO PLAYED LASSIE IN THE ORIGINAL TELEVISION SERIES ARE MENTIONED IN MY LIST. HAVE EDITED THE LIST AND INCLUDED OTHER DESCENDANTS AND THE CONTROVERSIES. !!! ItsLassieTime ( talk) 03:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
General comments:
!!! DONE. !!!
!!! DONE. I'M CONCERNED THERE WILL NOT BE MANY SOURCES COMING FORTH. !!! ItsLassieTime ( talk) 03:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Now, on to some per section comments...
Under MGM's "Lassie" films:
!!! Done. !!!
Under Television series:
!!!DONE. REWROTE WITH FOCUS ON PAL. ELIMINATED SUMMARIES OF PLOTS.!!! ItsLassieTime ( talk) 02:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
!!!DONE.!!! ItsLassieTime ( talk) 02:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Under Death
!!!DONE. SIMPLY DELETED THE POV AS THE DESCRIPTION IS FROM COLLINS AND NOT ATTRIBUTED TO A SPECIFIC PERSON.!!! ItsLassieTime ( talk) 02:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
!!!DONE. REWRITTEN AS SUGGESTED.!!! ItsLassieTime ( talk) 02:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
!!!SOURCES DO NOT STATE HIS CAUSE OF DEATH. MAY BE HIS OWNERS DID NOT WANT THE CAUSE REVEALED. FOR EXAMPLE, THE DOG COULD HAVE DIED AFTER FALLING DOWN A FLIGHT OF STAIRS BECAUSE SOMEBODY LEFT A DOOR OPEN OR SOMETHING.!!! ItsLassieTime ( talk) 02:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
!!!DONE!!! ItsLassieTime ( talk) 02:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Under Film and television:
!!!DONE. HAVE ADDED BOXES.!!! ItsLassieTime ( talk) 01:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
CRITERIA REVIEW: A good article is:
!!! DONE. !!!
!!! DONE. !!!
!!! DONE. !!!
Let me know whether you prefer to leave this On hold and go through the changes, or to have it Fail and renominate it after working on it at your own pace. Once again, if you choose the latter, contact me when you renominate it and I'd be happy to review it again. -- Hunter Kahn ( talk) 00:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
*I THINK THE ARTICLE IS UP TO SNUFF AT THIS POINT WITH THE MANY RECOMMENDATIONS UNDERTAKEN. THE ARTICLE READS WELL AND WHILE NOT UP TO FA STANDARDS AMPLY SATISFIES THE GA CRITERIA. GA STATUS IS NOT CONCERNED WITH AN EXHAUSTIVE TREATMENT OF THE TOPIC AND THIS ARTICLE I BELIEVE INCLUDES AS MUCH AS WILL EVER BE KNOWN ABOUT PAL. SURE, SOME ANECDOTAL MATERIAL MIGHT TURN UP BUT THE MAJOR ASPECTS AND FACTS ARE COVERED HERE.
I'M SEARCHING FOR THE BOOK "THE STORY OF LASSIE". BOOK SERVICES ALIBRIS HAS ONE AVAILALBE FOR $595.00 AND ABEBOOKS HAS THE BRITISH EDITIONS FOR LESS BUT THOSE ARE IN AUSTRALIA, ENGLAND, AND FRANCE. A COUPLE OF THE US EDITIONS ARE FOUND AT $40 AND $60. I CAN'T AFFORD THEM. I'M GOING TO CHECK WITH THE PUBLIC LIBRARY BUT I AM CERTAIN NOTHING WILL BE AVAILABLE IN THE 35 MEMBER LIBRARIES WITHIN MY COUNTY. THEY CAN DO AN INTERLIBRARY LOAN SEARCH. EVEN THEN I'M NOT OPTIMISTIC. LASSIE FANS WOULD HAVE RIPPED-OFF THE BOOK YEARS AGO.
THE MAIN ASPECTS OF THE TOPIC ARE ADEQUATELY COVERED HERE, PROSE IS REASONABLY WELL WRITTEN, NEUTRAL, IMAGES, AND STABLE. IF THE ARTICLE FAILS (AND I CAN'T IMAGINE WHY IT WOULD) I'LL TAKE IT TO COMMUNITY REASSESSMENT. I DON'T WANT A 'FAIL'. I'D RATHER DELIST IT "FOR FURTHER WORK" BECAUSE A 'FAIL' TAINTS AN ARTICLE FOREVER. NO OTHER REVIEWER WILL WANT TO TOUCH IT AND READERS SUSPECT THERE IS SOMETHING TERRIBLY WRONG WITH IT. THE EDITOR IS TAINTED TOO. IT ISN'T WORTH IT. FAILING ARTICLES SERVES NO PURPOSE UNLESS THEY'RE NONSENSE OR DELIBERATE VANDALISM TO IRK REVIEWERS. ARTICLES SHOULD BE UPGRADED OR DELISTED. I'VE FOLLOWED THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND UPGRADED THE ARTICLE. I BELIEVE IT PASSES GA CRITERIA WHICH SPEAKS TO DECENT ARTICLES NOT EXHAUSTIVE ARTICLES. WHILE IT MAY NOT ANSWER EVERYONE'S QUESTIONS IT DOES PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW WHICH IS ALSO ALLOWED AT GA. LET ME KNOW ABOUT YOUR DECISION. DON'T FAIL IT -- I'D RATHER DELIST IT.
ItsLassieTime (
talk)
06:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I saw this article listed at GAC, and I wanted to make a point regarding its referencing. As per Wikipedia:CITE#Including page numbers, specific page numbers should be used for book references. Because the main source for this article is a book, it is important to differentiate which page the cited material comes from, rather than listing a blanket range that covers over one hundred pages. This would also help plump up the number of citations, which at the moment seems rather lacking. María ( habla con migo) 13:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Not quite what I meant, but you're heading in the right direction. See Robert Sterling Yard's refs for an example of what style is typically used with book references. See how the book is listed in full only once (under "References"), and then referred to thereafter in shorthand in each citation under "Notes"? Now, since there's only one book ref used for this article, I would suggest making the first citation (the one after "Pal was judged not of the highest standards and sold as a pet-quality dog") list all of the ref info (author name, year, full title, publisher, ISBN, etc). Then you can use a shorthand ref for the rest of the citations that point to the book: "Collins, pp. 6–7", for example. I hope this helps. Whoops, and the book reference is missing publisher info -- the city. María ( habla con migo) 18:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Now, on to the remaining suggestions...
You're nearly home-free, ItsLassieTime! Keep up the good work!-- Hunter Kahn ( talk) 21:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
A good article is:
Well done, ItsLassieTime. Glad you stuck with this. Congrats for the Pass. -- Hunter Kahn ( talk) 13:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)