Talk:Artemis Fowl and the Arctic Incident

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Artemis Fowl, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Artemis FowlWikipedia:WikiProject Artemis FowlTemplate:WikiProject Artemis FowlArtemis Fowl articles

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fantasy task force.

Children's literature Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks you can do:

Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks.

Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles.
Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}}
Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project.
Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature
Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject.
References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs.
Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature
Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

edit

plot summary[edit]

While the plot summary is pretty good, it is far too long, not good quality for an encyclopedia, and has quite a few typos. -144.132.24.90 10:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The length and spelling is FINE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.12.214.90 (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not fine. With a plot summary so long, who will want to read? Put officially, I state, "The length of this article/section may adversely affect readability". I'll be working on it. I'll look at the typos IP Adress #1 claims are there. IP Adress #2, please be more polite on talk pages than you demonstrated here. IceUnshattered (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Artemisfowl2.JPG[edit]

Image:Artemisfowl2.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 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 02:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Artemis Fowl Collaboration[edit]

Seeing that we plan to all clean-up this article at the same time, we should probably split up the work/ figure out what to do. (do you mind if i change these bullets to subheadings so we can add info to them?? Percival500 (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'll handle writing up a new plot ~~summary~~ synopsis

Someone needs to find some reviews[edit]

- preferably the ones from the big newspapers, etc. (see Artemis Fowl (novel)#Critical response)

Guardian Review: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/jun/08/featuresreviews.guardianreview43
shortlisted for red house book award 2003 http://eoincolfer.com/news/date/2008/04/ and http://news.ansible.co.uk/a188.html
there is an interesting review from a metapsychology site http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=book&id=2160&cn=139

Anyone want to do a literature analysis[edit]

on the book... wait a sec, that'd be original research. So someone needs to find some descriptions of the book, analyses, etc., that are actually in WP:RS that cover theme, etc.

i dont wish to knock the novel, but i don't think anyone has bothered to analyse it that extensively, certainly not by acedemics anyway. maybe http://www.bookrags.com/studyguide-artemis-fowl/literaryqualities.html

Someone else needs to go through WP:MOS and all it's subpages and copy-edit, mess with format, images, etc. etc. etc. etc.
What to do with the part about the code? Unless it's mentioned in 3rd party sources, it can't stay...
Anything on Artemis Fowl (novel) should probably be matched here if possible (and reference-able)

The good-article criteria[edit]

...should be looked at and worked on. Flow and the intro will probably be the most difficult. Images too... but that's later

- i'll try to do this

Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 01:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on the plot summary. I think I'll take care of the reviews for now, I have a little experience for that...for now, I s'pose we can leave the code. Does it deserve a little mention or should it be wiped out altogether? IceUnshattered (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever WP:V says... I just also noticed that Artemis Fowl (novel) has a section on theme, we should probably match that if possible. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 04:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The code definetly deserves mention. It's on practically all the books! ArtemisFowl4 (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good article criteria[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
The #Plot section should be broken up into more sections, or shortened
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:
All the original research definitely needs to go.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Currently, it would be a fail.

Yep. Let's get working. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 04:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help :) --Percival500 (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have assesed it, with {{GAList2}} Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 00:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, but what should we do with the ??? ones? ^suzumebachi٭_secret 21:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

importance[edit]

there is no way amongst all the novels / novellas / short stories produced in the whole of history that this book rates as mid importance, apart from the fact that it hasn't been out long enough to really tell its impact on society and other literature -- Percival500 (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]