Talk:Sir Thursday

Untitled

If you know the name of the Lieutenant who escorts Arthur from Monday's Dayroom to the recruit Camp, wright on this page who

I believe its Crosshaw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.60.233 (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

The date of release in the infobox contradicts with the date of release in the text. WebBoy 07:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Emmett5 18:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please add American cover artwork!

Unfinished Page

The page is unfinished and doesn't make very much sense. Someone should fiz it.... I don't have time right now, unfortunately. 121.72.1.120 07:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sir Thursday/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ottava Rima (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• I was going to pass this article, as it was a good read and but I saw a few problems.
• (Not one of the problems) The synopsis probably outweighs the rest, but this is for GA (not FA) and it probably does not have as much coverage as would be optimal to make it less plot heavy. Regardless, the lead should be merged to one paragraph because of the small size of the article.
• (One of the problems) You rely on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and some other sources that do not have reliable source reviews. You should try to find some kind of news based reviews, magazines, etc. Amazon, Barnes and Noble, etc, have consumer reviews and are not reliable.
• If you just remove the unreliable reviews and substitute in some reliable ones (School Library Journal appears reliable and I could accept "The Trades" as reliable). I'm just leaving this note here and I won't put the article on hold. If another reviewer doesn't have a problem, they can feel free to pass it. If you work on it and follow with my suggestion (remove the consumer website reviews and put in more standard ones) then I will pass this. Cheers. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty. First, thanks for reading it - glad you liked it. :) After several hours googling (-_-), I managed to track down the original locations of the reviews I was resting on, hopefully improving the reliability of them. VOYA is a print magazine that is regularly referenced by publishers and booksellers, so I think that will do, and Children's Literature is basically a book database thing, which reviews lots of books, that is used by libraries and schools. Those are in addition to the two you said above were probably alright.

I thought I'd leave one or two of the references to the consumer sites are useful collations of the reviews - they can be checked if you choose to purchase a subscription to teh relevant magazines - but I can remove them altogether if that would be better. Cheers! Ale_Jrb^talk 17:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• I made a few minor fixes - you do not need to cite everything in the lead if it is cited below. You might want to create a background section to talk about publication details and the creation of the series as a whole - one or two paragraphs would be fine. I will pass this as GA, as it seems to meet the bare threshold right now. If there is any further questions, I can be contacted directly. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I shall look into writing a bit of background. Ale_Jrb^talk 10:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)