Talk:Further Adventures of Lad

Nature faker?

Alas, Lad fits the early 20th century model of a nature faker.--Wloveral (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting this should be noted in the article, and if so you have a source to state such a thing, or are you simply expressing your opinion? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Lassie

Is there any relation between Lad and Lassie? Was one author inspired by the other? If so, it should be in the article. Binksternet (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, no relation at all, beyond both having collie characters. :-) In my searches of both this and Lad: A Dog, I did not find any mention of the two beyond some fansites noting that sometimes people misremember one as the other. If Eric Knight was inspired by Albert Payson Terhune's earlier works in penning his novel, I have yet to find anything stating so. That said, Lassie Come-Home is one of the ones I'm still marinating in my sandbox and hoping to get to this month, so if it I do find something, it would be added but probably to the first novel's article rather than this one. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Further Adventures of Lad/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This is my first review, so I will definitely ask for a second opinion before pass/fail, and the article on hold until then. That said, here are a few of my observations.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass:

Comments:

Prose and MoS

1. The phrase, " and felt Lad as unbelievable", in the lead section, makes little sense. Possibly you meant, "felt Lad was unbelievable"?
2. Under The Coming of Lad, the statement, The couple, needs clarification. What couple?
3. Under In Strange Company, the phrase, Lad playful teases a bear, needs correction.
4. Under The Guard, the phrase, Her father makes her help him in her work, does not make sense.
5. This sentence, under Development and publication, does not follow: Terhune reported that he received hundreds of letters from fans asking him to publish more stories about Lad, and to have had over 1,700 people visit Lad's grave at Sunnybank.

#Also, there are multiple red links which should be corrected.

Additional

1. I would suggest adding a "See Also" section. Not necessary perhaps, but it appears that there would be plenty of applicable links.

Conclusion

I will place it on hold for a second opinion from a more experienced editor, and time for the comments to be addressed.

Reviewer: PrincessofLlyr (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the first five. Please clarify "red links which should be corrected"? I've removed two, but the remaining three all fall well under WP:REDLINK as articles likely to be created in the future, as they are all notable topics. I'll decline to add a see also, as I see no necessary applicable links for one. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note about red links. My own personal preference is no red links, but that doesn't affect the review. Other than that, I do not have any problems with it, but I'm still waiting for another opinion. Like I said, this is my first review, so I'm sure I'm not doing things exactly correctly, but I'm trying to be bold and get a feel for the process. Outside of GA criteria, I can tell you've done a lot of work on the article and it looks really good. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Worth an on hold, perhaps, but I don't think that the errors are particularly egregious. I've given it an additional copyedit and corrected some quirks, so I think that it should be passed. The redlinks are compliant and definitely creatable in the future. Good job to both of you, AnmaFinotera and PrincessofLlyr. bibliomaniac15 03:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the second opinion. I have passed it now. If you want to check and make sure I do that correctly that might be a good idea! PrincessofLlyr (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Chapter Titles

Are is the bolding of Chapters? They should not be bold. They should be made into headlines174.3.110.108 (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The bolding is fine and appropriate. Headlines would not be. Stop stalking/hounding me. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Further Adventures of Lad. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091023104038/http://www.waynetownship.com/his-sun.htm to http://www.waynetownship.com/his-sun.htm

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)