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

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?: ✅
 * 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?: ✅
 * 5. Article stability? ✅
 * 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  UCP 23:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Passed! Giggy  UCP 01:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)