Talk:Grey Griffins

,

See at the article's Peer Review King  Rock''' Go 'Skins! 21:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)'''

B Grade
First I think that we should work on getting this page to B Grade King Rock Go 'Skins! 03:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done! :) King Rock Go 'Skins! 03:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Good Article

 * 1) It is well written. In this respect:
 * (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
 * (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
 * (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
 * (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and
 * (c) contains no original research.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
 * (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; and
 * (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).
 * 1) It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * 2) It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
 * 3) It is illustrated, where possible, by images. In this respect:
 * (a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Eventually
Eventually this is what we will have to do to get this article to FA status.


 * 1) It is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
 * 2) *(a) "Well-written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of professional standard.
 * 3) *(b) "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.
 * 4) *(c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate.
 * 5) *(d) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias.
 * 6) *(e) "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day, except for edits made in response to the featured article process.
 * 7) It follows the style guidelines, including:
 * 8) *(a) a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections;
 * 9) *(b) a system of hierarchical headings and table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming (see section help);
 * 10) *(c) consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1), where they are appropriate (see 1c). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)
 * 11) It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must meet the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
 * 12) It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Edit
Sorry King, forgot to explain that (?). There is a word missing... he found the book in his Grandparents' house, attic, boat, what? Assuming he didn't find it actually in his grandparents. Dozenthey (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

GA review
I'm going to have to be honest - this article suffers badly from poor writing. The lead paragraph repeats the words "the series" over and over, and the plot summaries are only somewhat comprehensible, as they leave a lot out. It has no mention of reviews of the book, and I don't think it's quite passed GA yet. Sorry! Do keep working at it, and I'll happily review it again later. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A few other things to consider:


 * 1) A few of the sections are very short and would benefit from expansion. Currently, two of the sections are only one sentence long.
 * 2) There is no fair use rationale for Image:Grayson.jpg.
 * 3) The references are missing important information. At minimum, they should include a title, publisher, url, and accessdate. If a publication date and/or author is listed, this information should be included as well. See Citing sources for the template. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal: The Fall of the Templars to here
The Fall of the Templars has been tagged for notability for 7 years. I don't think it quite meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG on its own (please feel free to correct me if you can back it up) but certainly shouldn't be just deleted. Pinging those who have commented on its notability before or created it:, , , , ,. If you oppose a merge, please tell us, with reliable sources to back it up, how The Fall of the Templars meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. The Fall of the Templars is not notable on its own and lack sources. Merge makes sense. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grey Griffins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207065936/http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view to http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=140150364&blogId=441837101
 * Added tag to http://www.borderstores.com/search/title_detail.jsp?id=55157118&ref=list+harrypotteralts

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)