Talk:Artemis Fowl and the Arctic Incident

plot summary

While the plot summary is pretty good, it is far too long, not good quality for an encyclopedia, and has quite a few typos. -144.132.24.90 10:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The length and spelling is FINE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.12.214.90 (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not fine. With a plot summary so long, who will want to read? Put officially, I state, "The length of this article/section may adversely affect readability". I'll be working on it. I'll look at the typos IP Adress #1 claims are there. IP Adress #2, please be more polite on talk pages than you demonstrated here. IceUnshattered (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Artemisfowl2.JPG

Image:Artemisfowl2.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Artemis Fowl Collaboration

Seeing that we plan to all clean-up this article at the same time, we should probably split up the work/ figure out what to do. (do you mind if i change these bullets to subheadings so we can add info to them?? Percival500 (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• I suppose I'll handle writing up a new plot summary synopsis

Someone needs to find some reviews

- preferably the ones from the big newspapers, etc. (see Artemis Fowl (novel)#Critical response)

• Guardian Review: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/jun/08/featuresreviews.guardianreview43
• shortlisted for red house book award 2003 http://eoincolfer.com/news/date/2008/04/ and http://news.ansible.co.uk/a188.html
• there is an interesting review from a metapsychology site http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=book&id=2160&cn=139

Anyone want to do a literature analysis

• on the book... wait a sec, that'd be original research. So someone needs to find some descriptions of the book, analyses, etc., that are actually in WP:RS that cover theme, etc.

• i dont wish to knock the novel, but i don't think anyone has bothered to analyse it that extensively, certainly not by acedemics anyway. maybe http://www.bookrags.com/studyguide-artemis-fowl/literaryqualities.html

• Someone else needs to go through WP:MOS and all it's subpages and copy-edit, mess with format, images, etc. etc. etc. etc.
• What to do with the part about the code? Unless it's mentioned in 3rd party sources, it can't stay...
• Anything on Artemis Fowl (novel) should probably be matched here if possible (and reference-able)

The good-article criteria

• ...should be looked at and worked on. Flow and the intro will probably be the most difficult. Images too... but that's later

• - i'll try to do this

Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 01:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for working on the plot summary. I think I'll take care of the reviews for now, I have a little experience for that...for now, I s'pose we can leave the code. Does it deserve a little mention or should it be wiped out altogether? IceUnshattered (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever WP:V says... I just also noticed that Artemis Fowl (novel) has a section on theme, we should probably match that if possible. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 04:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The code definetly deserves mention. It's on practically all the books! ArtemisFowl4 (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Good article criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The #Plot section should be broken up into more sections, or shortened

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   All the original research definitely needs to go.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Currently, it would be a fail.

Yep. Let's get working. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 04:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll help :) --Percival500 (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have assesed it, with {{GAList2}} LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 00:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Great, but what should we do with the ??? ones? ^suzumebachi٭_secret 21:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

importance

there is no way amongst all the novels / novellas / short stories produced in the whole of history that this book rates as mid importance, apart from the fact that it hasn't been out long enough to really tell its impact on society and other literature -- Percival500 (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)