| Revision as of 23:04, 11 August 2006 editSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors279,000 edits →[]: add diff since nomination← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:11, 12 August 2006 edit undoMarskell (talk | contribs)22,422 edits segmentNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| *'''Status''' Diff since nomination – doesn't look like anyone is working on it. ] 23:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC) | *'''Status''' Diff since nomination – doesn't look like anyone is working on it. ] 23:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ====FARC commentary==== | |||
| :''Main FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (2b) and focus (5).'' ] 06:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:11, 12 August 2006
Middle-earth
article appears to have zero references; history and culture sections are entirely in-universe (see WP:WAF); "Adaptations" section seems to be more relevant to Lord of the Rings article than here. overall. article needs to be much more focused on out-of-universe aspects: ie process of authorship, what tolkien drew from to create it, its legacy on other authors, what commentators have had to say about middle-earth, critical analysis etc, without this it would appear to be non-comprehensive. and too many external links! Zzzzz 16:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the WP:WAF link! I'd never noticed it and I'm damn glad we have it as I've seen other articles that suffer from this. Your analysis of this particular case is on-target. The "in-universe" description, unfortunately, is embedded in the article to a degree that requires large re-structuring. Marskell 17:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
You are correct that references are needed. As for precisely how to interpret WP:WAF, you might want to see the discussion on the talk page for that guideline... As for "process of authorship" - the article already covers that quite well, and makes several links to the real-world sources. There are many improvements to be made, but do remember that it was featured 2 years ago near the beginning of the FAC process. I'll try and help out with improving the article. Thanks for pointing out the problems. Carcharoth 09:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Status Diff since nomination – doesn't look like anyone is working on it. Sandy 23:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
FARC commentary
- Main FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (2b) and focus (5). Marskell 06:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)