Talk:Pat the Bunny

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Pat the Bunny has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pat the Bunny article.

Article policies
Pat the Bunny was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: April 14, 2008

Pat the Bunny was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. The article was delisted as a GA. Please see the archived discussion for further information.
Discussion ended: 23:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is part of WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to children's and young adult literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
This article has an incomplete infobox template!
This article has an infobox template in need of a Cover! (prefer 1st edition

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

To-do list for Pat the Bunny:
  • expand with references
  • Get to FA!

Contents

[edit] Failed Good Article

  • Auto-fail: Do not nominate articles that are still considered stubs and that have incomplete sections. --SeizureDog 04:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA

Short but sweet, good article indeed. Can I just say one thing? Awwww. ;) Highway Return to Oz... 16:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Add section?

Recently there has been a popular parody of this in America, 'Pat the Politician'. Should we add a section detailing how Pat the Bunny was parodied to make Pat the Politician? Thanks. Ilikefood 22:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely - I've missed that parody. Put it under a ==Parody== header, I'd say. - DavidWBrooks 14:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Patthebunny.jpg

Image:Patthebunny.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Reassessment

I'm de-listing this article, as I don't think it passes criterion 3 (breadth) of the Good Article criteria. I realize it may be difficult to write a substantial article about a book of this kind, but there must be more to say about something that has sold so consistently for so long. If nothing else, I find myself unable even to visualize the book itself. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)