Wikipedia:Peer review/Artemis Fowl (novel)/archive2

Artemis Fowl (novel)
I think that this article is quite near to qualifying for GA, but I usually overestimate these things, and I expect that further improvement is needed. For this, I'm asking for some help from more experienced article writers :). Any comments/criticisms welcome. A le_Jrb talk  19:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's actually quite good, dear, and faily accurate, however:


 * Mistake #2 & 3: The books suggest that Artemis would not know much about Butler's past, or shouldn't, rather, according to tradition, (which, btw, Butler has breaks by telling Artemis his name, I believe. Sorry, it's been ages since I read them) Juliet trains somewhere in Asia, something we find early on in the 3rd book when Artemis reaches her by calling Madam Ko-- a phone number he shouldn't have, but I suppose we're supposed to write it off to his genius. Anyway, based on the fact that he's not supposed to know much about Butler, I suppose you could assume he wouldn't know if Butler's sensi was alive. But that brings up other plot contradictions.


 * I also suggest you access: www.orionawards.breakthepressure.com/forums. There is a thread with a great many other major plot holes that might be valuble as well. (and the people are experts, and very nice, and I'm sure would be glad to help you. I'm pretty sure the majority of the members have the book memorized) I'm not sure if there's a subpage about it, but you might also mention it has a small, but very loyal and active fandom, as is evident through the before mentioned site, and Artemis Fowl Confidential.  justice 23:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. The mistakes section was actually added while I was inactive; I'm not sure it should be there (too triviaish for my liking, personally). What d'ya think? A le_Jrb talk  06:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * For wikipedia, it may be, I'm not sure. There really are a great number of mistakes, such as Artemis's birthday, and things like that... I'm not sure. I would definitely keep the mistakes section small, however. Other than that, I would say the article looked good. However, just because there was nothing glaringly bad about it doesn't mean its absolutely wonderful. I'm not sure I have any great ideas for making it sparkle, unfortunately. Sorry. If you need help with anything, leave a note on my talk page. justice 18:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)