The contents of the Brooke Lundgren page were
merged into
Grey Griffins on 26 March 2015. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see
its talk page.
,
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.
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
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
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
(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:
^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.
(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.
(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.)
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.
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
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,
YllosubmarineWassupwestcoast,
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.