Misplaced Pages

Talk:Cultural depictions of spiders: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:51, 7 October 2007 editMasem (talk | contribs)Administrators187,277 edits GA on hold: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 16:51, 7 October 2007 edit undoMasem (talk | contribs)Administrators187,277 editsm GA on holdNext edit →
Line 2: Line 2:
{{oldafdfull|date= September 7, 2007 |result= '''keep''' |page= Spiders in culture }} {{oldafdfull|date= September 7, 2007 |result= '''keep''' |page= Spiders in culture }}



== GA on hold ==


==Good article nomination on hold== ==Good article nomination on hold==

Revision as of 16:51, 7 October 2007

Cultural depictions of spiders is currently a good article nominee. Nominated by an unspecified nominator at an unspecified date. To complete the template use: {{GA nominee|~~~~~|nominator=~~~|page=1|status=|subtopic=}}

Please use the |page= parameter to specify the number of the next free GAN review page, or use {{subst:GAN}} instead to find the next free page automatically.

This article is not categorized by subtopic. Please edit the |subtopic= parameter on this talk page to include one. For a list of subtopics, please see Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations.

Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on September 7, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.


Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 7, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: There's some areas that need improvement; while engaging speech is generally good for reading, the WP approach needs to be more factual though still can be engaging. "Even as children, many of us are exposed...", the reader should never be addressed. The section on Tsuchigimo doesn't mention anything about spiders until the last line.
2. Factually accurate?: You need more references on a few points, the Tsuchigimo for example, and probably some in the first section of the Mythology. It otherwise seems right, particularly if you cut down the text as described below in thoroughness/broadness.
3. Broad in coverage?: This seems to cover most common areas, but there's some areas given more focus than others; namely the Greek story of Arachne, and the part about Spider-man. For reference, I think the paragraph on the spider lore in several cultures in between the Greek Arachne and the Tsuchigimo is the right amount of detail and I would consider revising the other paragraphs to be as brief (particularly if the interlinked pages also describe the mythology/story appropriately) I would consider rearranging the section on spiders in literature, in comics (since Spider-man is sufficiently notable to expand this seperately), and in TV/film as one single overall section with three sub-sections, maybe calling this overall suggestion "In Creative Arts".
Also, consider if there are any popular myths that are used to portray spiders that are inaccurate (see, for example Lemmings jumping en masse into danger), I don't know if there are any so I can't say for sure if such exist.
4. Neutral point of view?: Seems fine.
5. Article stability? Seems fine.
6. Images?: Another image of spider lore from ancient cultures would be nice. I would argue strongly that to not use a Spider-man comic cover in the comic sections is a major major faux pas. A non-free image for a movie or TV show with spiders couldn't hurt, especially if you go horror/b-movie route (might I suggest "The Giant Spider Invasion"). All images appear to have appropriate license and FUR rationale, so good there.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — MASEM 16:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Categories: