Talk:Grey Griffins

,

Grey Griffins was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 15, 2008	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
June 8, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

See at the article's Peer Review King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 21:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Grey Griffins article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Novels: Fantasy / Sci-fi Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fantasy task force.
	This article is supported by Science fiction task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

Children's literature Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks you can do:

Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks.

Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles.
Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}}
Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project.
Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature
Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject.
References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs.
Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature
Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

edit

B Grade

First I think that we should work on getting this page to B Grade King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 03:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done! :) King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 03:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article

It is well written. In this respect:
(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]
It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
(a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;^[2]

(b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;^[2] and

(c) contains no original research.
It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).
It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
It is illustrated, where possible, by images.^[4] In this respect:
(a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[5]

References

^ It is strongly recommended that the Manual of Style is broadly followed, but this is not required for good articles.
^ ^a ^b In-line citations, if provided, should follow either the Harvard references or the cite.php footnotes method, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then they should be used.

Eventually

Eventually this is what we will have to do to get this article to FA status.

It is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
- (a) "Well-written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of professional standard.
- (b) "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.
- (c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate.
- (d) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias.
- (e) "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day, except for edits made in response to the featured article process.
It follows the style guidelines, including:
- (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections;
- (b) a system of hierarchical headings and table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming (see section help);
- (c) consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes^[1] or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1), where they are appropriate (see 1c). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)
It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must meet the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

References

^ Smith 2007, p. 1.

Edit

Sorry King, forgot to explain that (?). There is a word missing... he found the book in his Grandparents' house, attic, boat, what? Assuming he didn't find it actually in his grandparents. Dozenthey (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

I'm going to have to be honest - this article suffers badly from poor writing. The lead paragraph repeats the words "the series" over and over, and the plot summaries are only somewhat comprehensible, as they leave a lot out. It has no mention of reviews of the book, and I don't think it's quite passed GA yet. Sorry! Do keep working at it, and I'll happily review it again later. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few other things to consider:

A few of the sections are very short and would benefit from expansion. Currently, two of the sections are only one sentence long.
There is no fair use rationale for Image:Grayson.jpg.
The references are missing important information. At minimum, they should include a title, publisher, url, and accessdate. If a publication date and/or author is listed, this information should be included as well. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for the {{cite web}} template. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal: The Fall of the Templars to here

The Fall of the Templars has been tagged for notability for 7 years. I don't think it quite meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG on its own (please feel free to correct me if you can back it up) but certainly shouldn't be just deleted. Pinging those who have commented on its notability before or created it: Jadden77, Orangemike, Next-Genn-Gamer, Kingrock, Yllosubmarine Wassupwestcoast, Kevinalewis. If you oppose a merge, please tell us, with reliable sources to back it up, how The Fall of the Templars meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The Fall of the Templars is not notable on its own and lack sources. Merge makes sense. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grey Griffins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] It is strongly recommended that the Manual of Style is broadly followed, but this is not required for good articles.

[Harvard_and_cite.php-2] In-line citations, if provided, should follow either the Harvard references or the cite.php footnotes method, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics.

[4] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[5] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then they should be used.

[6] Smith 2007, p. 1.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]