Talk:Transformation playing card

A couple things

Okay, finally finished this article up enough to put it in article space. A couple things might still need work, though:

• If anybody is aware of any sources regarding the origin of the term "semi-transformation" or anything about contemporary productions those would be helpful for this article.
• If anybody knows of any notable decks that aren't included, that would also be great.
• Finally, if anybody has access to better public domain or GFDL images, those would be more than welcome.

Thanks. -Chunky Rice 23:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Minor Arcana

I'd like to see some mention of the Minor Arcana from the Tarot as it is a good example of the practice of embelishing the numbered suit cards. --Davémon 16:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I added it as a see also, since it is similar. Unforunately, I don't have any information, in my source material, on how the practices actually relate, so I'm not sure what I would put in the article that wasn't original research. -Chunky Rice 17:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of July 18, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Expand lead to fully summarise article per WP:LEAD. There is debate as to whether these cards should be considered transformation playing cards. They are often referred to as semi-transformation playing cards - Combine this into one sentence. In Strand Magazine's December 1910 issue, it published an article entitled "Playing Card Squiggles." - reword this a bit. "it" doesn't sound too good.

2. Factually accurate?: Y

3. Broad in coverage?: Expand contemporary section with image, if possible. You could also discuss The Key to the Kingdom a bit more.

4. Neutral point of view?: Y

5. Article stability? Y

6. Images?: Is there an image of a contemporary design?

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Giggy _U^CP 23:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done - Passed! Giggy _U^CP 01:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Transformation playing card/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I will do the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is fairly simple and straight forward. Ref [6] is dead and needs to be repaired. Images are good and fair use rationale is found on the copyrighted image. I think you could add a bit about contemporary designs to the lead as this isn't covered in the lead but is in the article. Aside from that I think the article is fine. H1nkles (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)