Talk:Further Adventures of Lad/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

This is my first review, so I will definitely ask for a second opinion before pass/fail, and the article on hold until then. That said, here are a few of my observations.
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass:

Comments:
Prose and MoS
 * 1) The phrase, " and felt Lad as unbelievable", in the lead section, makes little sense. Possibly you meant, "felt Lad was unbelievable"?
 * 2) Under The Coming of Lad, the statement, The couple, needs clarification. What couple?
 * 3) Under In Strange Company, the phrase,  Lad playful teases a bear, needs correction.
 * 4) Under The Guard, the phrase, Her father makes her help him in her work, does not make sense.
 * 5) This sentence, under Development and publication, does not follow: Terhune reported that he received hundreds of letters from fans asking him to publish more stories about Lad, and to have had over 1,700 people visit Lad's grave at Sunnybank.
 * 6) Also, there are multiple red links which should be corrected.

Additional
 * 1) I would suggest adding a "See Also" section. Not necessary perhaps, but it appears that there would be plenty of applicable links.

Conclusion

I will place it on hold for a second opinion from a more experienced editor, and time for the comments to be addressed.

Reviewer: PrincessofLlyr (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixed the first five. Please clarify "red links which should be corrected"? I've removed two, but the remaining three all fall well under WP:REDLINK as articles likely to be created in the future, as they are all notable topics. I'll decline to add a see also, as I see no necessary applicable links for one. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note about red links. My own personal preference is no red links, but that doesn't affect the review. Other than that, I do not have any problems with it, but I'm still waiting for another opinion. Like I said, this is my first review, so I'm sure I'm not doing things exactly correctly, but I'm trying to be bold and get a feel for the process. Outside of GA criteria, I can tell you've done a lot of work on the article and it looks really good. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Worth an on hold, perhaps, but I don't think that the errors are particularly egregious. I've given it an additional copyedit and corrected some quirks, so I think that it should be passed. The redlinks are compliant and definitely creatable in the future. Good job to both of you, AnmaFinotera and PrincessofLlyr.  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the second opinion. I have passed it now. If you want to check and make sure I do that correctly that might be a good idea! PrincessofLlyr (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)