 | The Monster Bed was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Former good article nominee | |||||||||||||
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Fair use rationale for Image:Monster Bed.jpg
edit
Image:Monster Bed.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.
GA fail
editI applaud your efforts to write about this children's book, but you need to carefully review wikipedia's policies on verifiability and original research. Much of what this article contains is original research. Any interpretations of the book beyond a basic plot summary must be cited to secondary sources, such as children's literature scholarship or book reviews. You cannot present your own interpretation of the book and cite page numbers of the book itself as evidence of that interpretation, no matter how obvious it may appear. You need to cite from reliable sources. Amazon.com reader reviews, for example, are not reliable because they are not peer-reviewed (scholarly sources) and are not contemporary critical reviews. You cannot be sure those are really parents speaking.
Apart from that, I would suggest cutting down the plot summary and the description of the characters. Those two sections currently dominate the page. Any crucial details about the characters should be integrated into the plot summary. Note also that the word "then" reappears quite a bit in the plot summary.
Good luck with the research on this. I'm sure that once you find some sources, it will be a great article. Awadewit | talk 08:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for the applause ;) I'm not sure what you mean by my own interpretation, this article is completely neutral. I see what you mean by Amazon.com, though, I guess I should take that part out. I actually followed Uncle Tom's Cabin in laying out the different sections, as you can see the other article has sections on major characters and such.–Sidious1701(talk • email • todo) 22:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)