- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was unsuccessful. Please do not modify it.
Dewback
(-1)
Support
- Nice work quietly done... Fully sourced, truly compelling prose while the talk page is empty. Domlith 13:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
- From the cleverly worded introduction of Jorrel Fraajic
- No info from, or even reference to, cloaca (it's canon!)
- Infobox needs to be fully sourced - you're only missing one, and it shouldn't be too hard to find.
- Intro could definitely stand to be longer, by at least another three sentences.
- For the different types of dewback, perhaps some bolding could accompany the italics, just so it's easier to spot them?
- References need to be linked.
- It might just be me, but it seems that there are a lot of untouched sources. Are some of the facts repeated in them, or are they not covered?
- Toprawa:
- Jorrel's got a pretty good base for you to start with here, but seriously, Domlith, you didn't do anything to this article. You found it like it was and nominated it. The article surely has a bit of a way to go.
- There's nothing inherently wrong with that, if he's willing to address whatever issues others come up with. We don't have a rule saying GA or FA nominations have to come from an editor who made major contributions to the article. —Silly Dan (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, Dan, what's inherently wrong is the number of articles that get nominated because users don't take the time to either read the guidelines of what a Good article is or go and look at other articles to see what is "good." With all due respect to all parties involved, I have no reservations about saying this nomination is a joke. This might be a perfect example of what our Featured article page warns against: "this is not a page to nominate your favorite articles," which can just as easily be applied here. The fact that the nominator did little to no work on this whatsoever is enough to tell me that this article isn't ready. If you would like to further call me out about how I do my job, I would appreciate if you came and talked to me directly on my talk page or in IRC. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- There's nothing inherently wrong with that, if he's willing to address whatever issues others come up with. We don't have a rule saying GA or FA nominations have to come from an editor who made major contributions to the article. —Silly Dan (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- The intro needs to be 5x times what you've got there
- The article is to be organized according to how species articles should be laid out. Please see the Manual of Style and click on the Layout Guide link
- Really? There's no history section? Those appearance and source lists are pretty karking massive. The history section should be huge.
- Your references aren't linked. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Jorrel's got a pretty good base for you to start with here, but seriously, Domlith, you didn't do anything to this article. You found it like it was and nominated it. The article surely has a bit of a way to go.
Comments
Well, thank you for the remarks, they were quite helpful. Next time I will read and think it over more properly, before nominating an article. I guess it fails now, but I am going to work on it in the future. There is one thing I want to point out, however. This poor animal has quite a few appearances, that is true. However, if you look carefully, many of them are role-playing sourcebooks, and there are only a few works where dewbacks play a role greater than being in the background. Mostly just the main biological facts are listed in the sourcebooks, therefore I do not think that the Biology section can be expanded much more. For expanding the history section one needs stories involving dewbacks. Unfortunately I have to leave the incorporation of these into the section to those people who have more of these works at their disposal. Domlith 21:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)