Wikipedia talk:Peer review/The Open Boat/archive1

Comments

(Note: I have moved these comments from the main peer review page because they are either not actionable or simply incorrect. María (habla conmigo) 19:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

the plot section is lacking reference, so i say keep it at GA-class.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion, but plot summaries do not require citations per WP:PLOTSUM; the reference is typically known to be the work itself, unless stated otherwise. María (habla conmigo) 19:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

one thing i find odd is the notes and references. i never seen it in such a format before.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you may want to familiarize yourself with the hundreds of articles that utilize it, including a majority of literary-related Featured Articles: Emily Dickinson, The Raven, Mary Wollstonecraft, To Kill a Mockingbird, etc., etc. No offense, Bread Ninja, but I would greatly appreciate PR comments from someone actually familiar with quality articles and the FA criteria... María (habla conmigo) 15:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i'm a little offended, but I'm not going to pay attention to it. Anyways all i aid that i find it odd, not that it goes against FA-GA criteria.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. María (habla conmigo) 15:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]