Talk:Warriors (novel series)/GA1

GA Reassessment

In its current state, this article does not meet the GA criteria.

Prose: Not so great overall. There are a lot awkward sentences, and the general quality should be improved.
- I have asked a copyeditor to look over the article. Shrewpelt (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References: This is the worst area. I count 17 references to [http://www.amazon.com Amazon], as well as several to Barnes & Noble and Powell's Books, all of which are not acceptable or appropriate for use as references. This alone is enough for de-listing. One reference in particular, currently number 8, a link to http://www.theguttersnipe.co.uk/, no longer exists, although it is referenced 7 times.
- Right now, these are for reviews and release dates. The authors themselves have said that Amazon is a realiable source. As for citation 8... The site is a bit annoying. It changed recently, so you have to do a bit of web surfing to get there. And you can't really link it, because (I think) the site is flash. I'll look for some references to cover these citations. Shrewpelt (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even so, these sites should not be used as references, not for release dates and especially not for reviews. For one thing, these reviews are all going to be biased, because the sites want you to buy the book; besides that, it's just not a reliable source. We need to reference the review in its original form (I know it's more difficult but it's the proper way). Mr. Absurd (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've tried to get some of these reviews, but they all appear to be on websites where you have to register to see the reviews. What do you suggest? Shrewpelt (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've found some reviews myself, using several databases (mostly from my city's library system). Check your library's site to see if they have access to any databases. I'll add some references to what I've found so far. Also try http://www.accessmylibrary.com/, it's pretty good. Mr. Absurd (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for the help! It looks like the Crit. Reception section has most or all of its references fixed. There still are some more citations to be fixed, mostly about release dates. Shrewpelt (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original research: The "Themes" section either contains original research or needs more detailed inline citation—right now it's not clear what specific details are referenced, and quotes especially need to be cited as well.
- Hmm... that would require having the same citation in twice in a row, like this:

Another theme shown in the books shows how characters can be a mix of good and evil. Holmes has said she is fascinated by these "shades of gray" in personalities.^[1] Her example of this was when Bluestar, a "lovely" cat, gave up her kits for her ambition. A third major theme, called nature versus nurture, relates to whether a person is born the way he or she will be, or if other things shape that.^[1] This theme ties into the "shades of gray" theme. Other themes that have been pointed out include family, loss, honor, bravery and death, loyalty, and following rules.^[1]

It just wouldn't look right. Shrewpelt (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a more general sense, the article is a bit messy, with a lot of confusing sections and sub-sections that could be cleaned up a bit. In my opinion, this article was very prematurely promoted to GA, and still needs quite a bit of work before it's up to that quality. I'm going to give about a week to try to get this article back up to snuff, and then reassess it to decide if it should be delisted or kept as a GA. Mr. Absurd (talk) 06:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: Do the books use British or American spelling? I would assume British... if so, the article should be standardised that way, and a message left on the talk page (right now, I see both "centres" and "centers", as well as "color"). Mr. Absurd (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that there are versions for both. Which would you prefer? Shrewpelt (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the authors are British, I think we should standardise with British spelling. Mr. Absurd (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, I really don't know British spelling. I will try to change the spelling using American and British English spelling differences, if I can. Shrewpelt (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will help with the cleanup, I think that this article has really improved since 2007, but it still needs some work.--res2216firestar (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delisting

After leaving this article on hold for just over a week, I'm now delisting it from good article status. Some of my concerns were met, mostly concerning the sub-par references, but most of this work was done by myself (rewriting and referencing the critical reception section and the lead) and not much was done by others. The entire article still needs to be cleaned up, much of the prose needs major copyediting, and still more references must be fixed to meet the GA standards. Mr. Absurd (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ ^a ^b ^c Cite error: The named reference Second Chat was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Second_Chat-1] Cite error: The named reference Second Chat was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]