Talk:Ramona

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Novels
Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories 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 and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the 19th century task force. (rated as High importance)
Assessment comments
Good article Ramona has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
May 18, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

[edit] Summary

This novel's summary needs to be tightened up. It doesn't make grammatical sense.

[edit] GA Nomination

I'm going to put this article on hold until a few issues are sorted out. Heres a guide for you:

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Basically the prose, particularly in the plot section, needs work, and more references need to be found. Other than that, it does look like a very good article. Grover 11:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your time in reviewing this article. Specifically, which portions do you think need more references? I will see what I can do about the plot summary section. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 16:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok there are a few sections:

  1. The second paragraph of the lead may need one or two references eg "Initially serialized in the Christian Union on a weekly basis" is unsourced.
  2. The first paragraph of Major themes is entirely unreferenced. This may need one or two references again, especially for the quote included. Also a few more in the other paragraphs wouldn't hurt.(I may be wrong though. Do those references at the end of each paragraph signify that the whole paragraph was sourced from that reference? If so thats fine.)
  3. Again, some paragraphs in Cultural impact are not referenced.

In regards to the prose, really only very minor tweaking is needed, so if a few more references are found, thats fine with me. Good luck! :) Grover 02:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, nice work in a very short period of time! I think that's enough for a good article. Well done to all and good luck in the future! Grover 08:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)