Talk:Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards

Notability
This is very well-written article, but isn't it the Bone Wars that are notable rather than this graphic novel? I see no indication that this graphic novel is notable in any way and almost gave it the "spam" tag. Can you explain? House of Scandal 18:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there currently are no hard and fast rules for comic books/graphic novels as of now, but I think that as per WP:NOTE this satisfies at least these criteria for books:

In addition, it meets this: I believe it also passes the "Google test", as poor an indicator as that may be (11,700). I certainly applaud your commitment to notability and trash, but I believe this sits well will several guidelines. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk &bull; contribs) 22:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The book's author meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for people, based on his/her work as a writer. (applying to Ottaviani).
 * Books should have at a minimum an ISBN number (for books published after 1966), be available at a dozen or more libraries and be catalogued by its country of origin's official or de facto national library. (I have put on the ISBN, and it has a National Library of Congress number as well.)

Thank you for your comments. However, note that having an ISBN is an exclusionary guideline rather than an inclusionary one (see Notability (books)). The only one that is possibly met is that the author is notable, barely. As the guidelines themselves state, they are guidelines rather than hard rules. Here are the criteria:

A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets one or more of the following criteria: What is clear to me is that this article violates the spirit of these rules. This book deserves a mention in the author's article but as it is, this article seems more like an advertisement. House of Scandal 22:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The book's author meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for people, based on his/her work as a writer.
 * 2) The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theatres.
 * 3) The book has won a non-trivial literary award.
 * 4) The book is taught at multiple grade schools, high schools,  universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
 * 5) The book has been the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews in works meeting our standards for reliable sources.  Reviews in periodicals that review thousands of books a year with little regard for notability, such as Publisher's Weekly, Library Journal and Kirkus Reviews do not meet this criterion.
 * 6) The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews.
 * 7) * The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flapcopy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book
 * I read the rest of it. Frankly, I still believe it should stay. Be whatever the case about the article, 'guidelines rather than rules' cuts both ways. But I have no issue bringing it to an AfD, if that is your wish. Dåvid ƒuchs  (talk &bull; contribs) 23:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I won't drag it that far as per the Wikipedia guideline "don't be a dick." Not going to AfD with this article is in accordance with my personal Wikipedia motto: When you have bigger fish to fry, let the small fry go. To add a third cliché to the mix, I'll try to be part of the solution; what this article is lacking is a mention of Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards from a third party source. I'll try to find one. House of Scandal 00:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, yeah... so are we still in second stage of hell with this? Dåvid ƒuchs  (talk &bull; contribs) 23:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No. The tag is removed.  I hope, however, you will add what the article needs: two or three third-party quotes about this book so to establish its notability.  Yeah, I said I'd look...but since you're the one advocating for the article I want to hand you that torch and just walk away from this.  House of Scandal 08:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments
Well, this morning, I clicked "edit" and started typing comments on the FAC for this article. One thing led to another and I didn't click "save" until just now, only to discover that the nom was closed and archived in the mean time. I'm copying my comments here in case anyone wants to pursue a future nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 18:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Can you provide the genre field in the infobox?
 * Who is Big Time Attic? Is that a company or a person?  I see you explain later in the Background heading, but if there is no article, I think you need to provide brief context here or create a stub and wikilink.
 * "This novel is the first historically fictitious work Ottaviani has done..." Written?
 * "Following the two scientists Edward Drinker Cope and Othniel Marsh as they engage in an intense rivalry, Ottaviani has the two scientists interact and meet many important figures of the Gilded Age, from P. T. Barnum to U.S. Grant in their hotheaded and sometimes illegal pursuits." The scientists' pursuits or the important figures' pursuits?
 * The lead confuses the amount of fiction in the story. It's referred to as "slightly fictionalized" which implies mostly true, then "historical fiction" which implies 100% fiction.  Then you say critics wished there was more fiction.
 * "According to author Jim Ottaviani, he was drawn to the subject..." Seems unnecessarily wordy.  Why not just: "Author Jim Ottaviani was drawn to the subject..."?
 * When you get into the Background section, you write that Ottaviani met Cannon and Ottaviani was "willing" to show Big Time Attic his proposal. This implies that Ottaviani was giving this new firm some needed business.  However, later you quote Ottaviani as saying he was lucky to get this novel published, implying the reverse relationship.  It doesn't follow, logically.
 * "One of Ottaviani's bits of creative license was to transport the artist Charles Knight earlier into the story than originally intended." Intended is an ambiguous term here - do you mean earlier than Ottaviani had planned in early drafts?  Or earlier than it actually historically happened?
 * Unclear how the Knight manuscript "solidified" his role in the book. The term implies that Ottaviani wasn't sure if he wanted to include Knight, but after getting the manuscript was convinced.
 * Is it GT Labs (infobox and external links) or G.T. Labs (text)?
 * The prose in the Plot summaries is good, although I'm struggling with the issue of sourcing. Obviously the book is the source - it needs to be listed in the References section.  Consider footnoting major plot events to page numbers in the book for verifiability.
 * Check for hyphens that should be em dashes, especially in the Characters section.
 * General concern about unsourced statements in the Character section. Two statements cross the line from recounting into interpretation which in this context is OR unless you have a source:
 * "Ottaviani portrays Cope as the more sympathetic of the two scientists."
 * "As a plot device, Ottaviani introduces Knight to Cope earlier than historically recorded."
 * --Laser brain (talk) 18:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

GA pass
A fine read. Not much else to say. Wrad (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

FAR
The sourcing in this article isn't all that great. Almost 3/4 of the footnotes are the book itself, and I'm not sure what makes pages like Bookslut.com or Sequential Tart reliable. If the sourcing is not improved, then I'm taking this to WP:FAR. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The citations to the book are primarily for sourcing the plot; that's hardly problematic. As for the other sources, I suggest you read the FAC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems the last paragraph under "Reception" needs a citation. FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

URFA/2020 notes
I am marking this Satisfactory at WP:URFA/2020, but the following should be addressed: Regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Citation style is inconsistent: some use the rp template for page numbers, while others have pages within the citations.
 * The Wallace, Jaffe and Adams books are missing page numbers.