Talk:Orcs: First Blood

Orcs: First Blood was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 27, 2009	Articles for deletion	No consensus
January 27, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Novels: Fantasy Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fantasy task force.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 13:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Orcs: First Blood/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 17:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Quicksheet 1.23 SM
(Criteria)

Starting comments:

I've been hovering around this one for a while, but have not committed to doing it until now because I knew it was going to be failed and I really don't like failing GANs.

1. Well written:

a. prose/copyright:

Needs work

- This article needs a thorough copyedit before it can be considered for GAN. The text is choppy, with individual points in single sentences forming their own paragraphs, a few awkward word choices, and far to many quotes for the amount of prose on the page. There are also some minor issues that a general cleanup would fix (for example, you don't need to specify that sources in English are in English.) I recommend that you take this to the requests page of the Guild of Copy Editors. While you're there, you should ask the copyeditor who takes the job for advice on where additional prose is needed. Certain sections, like the 'Reception' section, need additional synthesis (i.e. "critics praised XXX, YYY, and ZZZ, but found the book lacking in AAA and BBB").

b. MoS compliance:

2. Accurate and verifiable:

a. provides references:

Needs work

- As a general statement, if it's at all possible to avoid sources tied to the article you're covering, avoid those sources. stannicholls.com is used four times (additionally all the links go to the homepage, not the subpages specified in the sources).

b. proper citation use:

c. no original research:

3. Broad in coverage:

a. covers main aspects:

Needs work

- You should ask someone with more experience writing articles on literature for specifics, but this just dosen't feel complete. I pointed out the 'Reception' section above, but it feels light overall.

b. focused/on topic:

4. Neutral:

5. Stable:

6. Image use:

a. license/tagging correct:

Needs work

- I don't think that File:Orcs-stryke.jpg adds enough to the article to meet the non-free use criteria, specifically #8.

b. relevant/properly captioned:

7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer:

a. images that should have alt texts have them:

b. general catch all and aesthetics:

Comments after the initial review:

I haven't marked anything off as done because I think that there's a good number of changes needed. Sorry if this seems harsh, but I felt it best to let you know everything now, rather than have you wait and wait and wait for a review. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOT PROMOTED 1a, 2a, 3a, and 6a concerns.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Orcs: First Blood. 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/20080723174210/http://www.thewritefantastic.com/stannicholls.html to http://www.thewritefantastic.com/stannicholls.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]