Jump to content

Talk:Midas (Shelley play)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleMidas (Shelley play) 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 so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 1, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 5, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Mary Shelley's verse drama Midas is a commentary on both Ovid's Metamorphoses and Chaucer's The Wife of Bath's Tale?

GA pseudo-review

[edit]

Near the end of the plot summary, one of the characters determines to check under Midas' crown when he is sleeping. Does he?

In the reception section, it says that, after a long period when they were ignored, modern researchers have decided to analyse Mary Shelley's other work. What have they said about Midas? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Midas (Shelley)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Successful good article nomination

[edit]

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of July 9, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Understandable and clear use of language.
2. Factually accurate?: Good use of notes/bibliography.
3. Broad in coverage?: Covers multiple different aspects of the work, broken up into subsections Background, Writing and publication, Plot summary, Genre, Style and themes, and Reception.
4. Neutral point of view?: Appears to be written in a neutral manner.
5. Article stability? Stable since May 2008 creation, no issues in article history or on talk page.
6. Images?: All images used are on Wikimedia Commons, no issues here.

Excellent work, well done yet again by Awadewit (talk · contribs) If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Cirt (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]