Talk:The Owl Service
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Fantasy task force. (with unknown importance) | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
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. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
Tasks you can do:
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] Turning a short article into one-sentence sections?
I'm not at all convinced that the very wholesale splitting of a couple of paragraphs into a series of sub-sections -- some of which have no content whatsoever -- has really enhanced this article. Until more content is added, I think this article might be better as it was, and I'm very strongly tempted to just turn it back to what it was. Am I on my own here? --Telsa (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- It is meant to be a spur to other editors to enhance this article and bring it up in quality to a full Novel article. Otherwise it will always remain a poor stub. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Owl servicePB 1973.jpg
Image:Owl servicePB 1973.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Release date
The article (and category) states this as a 1967 book, but in the box text, it states 1968. Which is correct? I've always understood it to be 1967.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] TV Version
I think it's time that the TV adaptation was given its own page, it's certainly notable enough, while the Novel is notable enough to be on its own. Anyone else agree?
Hopefully with the new DVD release, there will be some interest generated to do this. If not, I'll make a start.
I think on the importance scale - both Novel and TV should be mid-importance rather than Low - they're much more worthy than that in many respects.--82.0.207.86 (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
