Talk:Moonrise (novel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Moonrise (Warriors))
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Moonrise (novel) 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.


I think the section 'Other' should be named something different. Perhaps 'Major events' would work. I will change it tomorrow if no one objects to this. Shrewpelt (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Passed[edit]

This article has passed the GA noms. It is well balanced and well-cited to show factual accuracy. The next steps would be to expand the reception, and development sections. If you feel that this review was in error feel free to take this article to WP:GA/R. Thanks. Tarret talk 21:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

FA possibility?[edit]

Does anyone want to try to see if this article can be made an FA candidate? We could request a peer review and see if there's anything that is clearly missing, and then, when that's done, give it a try as an FAC. Personally, I think the more novel FAs there are, the better for everyone, and this is already at GA class. John Carter (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll put in a peer review request after I check with the main contributors. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Probably all that needs to be done is the expansion of some of the sections and copyediting. After that, it could reach FA. Shrewpelt (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a long way from FA, and probably barely GA standard. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 01:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

A prescient warning. The article has now been delisted. Geometry guy 21:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree that this article is far from FA, but it's possible. I'll help any way I can. In fact I'm possibly about to do some major editing on it. But what I think would be more representitive of the Warriors series would be to make Into the Wild and/or the main Warriors article an FA. Melkittycat (talk) 00:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


I added punctuation and fixed the plot. Come visit me! (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what we need! BTW, welcome to WikiProject Warriors! PrincessofLlyr royal court 18:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Come visit me! (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You know, I can't find any Plot. Ian 04:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian.bjorn (talkcontribs)

At Wikipedia, we strive to keep only important plot details, leaving behind all the trivial details. So right now, there is only plot. Derild4921 19:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I split the Synopsis into 2 parts, which are Previous book and Plot. That should make it easier for people like me to get to the Plot and not just all of it. I did it to prevent confusion. Ian (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ian, that explanation should go in the box labelled "edit summary" which is right above the save page button and minor edit checkbox. Brambleclawx 20:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
It's gone! My good edit is gone! Look at my contributions, it says it in the summary! Awww..... Oh, well. I'll need someone to be on my side. Ian (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I fixed up some grammatical errors :) Ratkinzluver33 (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


I think that they talk about the 9/11 attacks influence a little too often. Don't get me wrong, I want the idea in there, but there are multiple sections that pretty much talk about the same thing. I have no editing skills (haha) so could someone please, please, please, edit those sections or remove them? Thank you so much in advance! Ratkinzluver33 (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. I'll think about it, but both section are legit. (it's only two sections, "Inspirations and influences" & "Themes") PrincessofLlyr royal court 16:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind. I looked at it again and just merged the two. PrincessofLlyr royal court 16:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Characters section?[edit]

This article ought to have a characters section. The problem is, we need to decide what makes a character count as important in each book. For example: does Brambleclaw need to be described because he's one of the journeying cats? Or is he not important enough in this particular book to count? Feathertail seems to be a shoo-in, but other than that, I think everything else can be rather hard to determine. Maybe its best to draw up some guideline now. Brambleclawx 15:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say you could legitimately have each of the journeying cats and Crowpaw. All of the journeying cats have significance, so I don't really think anyone could question that. It's been awhile, so I don't really remember which other characters would be significant. PrincessofLlyr royal court 20:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Brambleclaw, Squirrelpaw, Feathertail, Stormfur, Tawnypelt, Crowpaw. I'm thinking that Midnight would be important as well. I'd probably say no to Purdy, but Stoneteller may be important. Brook might be important (I can't remember when Stormfur fell in love with her, maybe that was Dawn). Sharpclaw probably, but most of the Tribe is not important. Hm... and maybe Leafpaw, seeing as she's one of the "narrator"s. Brambleclawx 02:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I think, as said before, all journeying cats would be important. Also, we could set a "rule of thumb" so to speak of any cat that, if not present, the story would not make sense. Also, certain alternate names for cats should not be included. For example, Firestar's original name was Rusty I think. That could mentioned in his section, but not in the main header. If you know what I'm saying. I'm Flightx52 and I approve this message 03:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
My first comment would be that while I think there would be a valid reason for a characters section in the first book of the series, in this case Warriors: The New Prophecy, I am not sure that having a detailed section discussing the characters and their behaavior in each individual book would be necessary, and could conceivably violate WP:PLOT. Of course, characters which appear only or first in this book might be best included here, but, even then, we would have to ensure that the degree of detail doesn't go to the point of violating WP:PLOT. Taking all that into account, I think it would be useful to know which particular characters are being considered for inclusion in this proposed list section, and what material is considered for inclusion. John Carter (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I currently plan to write a short description of Brambleclaw, Squirrelpaw, Feathertail, Stormfur, Crowpaw, Tawnypelt, Midnight, Sharptooth, and Stoneteller. If anyone else has any suggestions, please tell me. Brambleclawx 01:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
John Carter, I thoroughly read through WP:PLOT and I'm not quite sure what portion of it you're referring to. If you could direct me to the exact part of the policy, it would be great. Thanks! Face-smile.svg I'm Flightx52 and I approve this message 02:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Basically, the first point. A character list pretty much by definition has to describe the character, and, in works of fiction, those descriptions often involve material which qualifies as plot summary. Having such additional plot-related material about individual characters, in addition to an overall plot summary, could very easily result in excessive description of the plot in the same single article.

I am currently reading this book and I see the use of a character section. I think the cats Brambleclawx mentioned fit in the character section. Also I agree with what Flightx29 is saying about if the story doesn't make sense without a certain cat that cat should be included Nyswimmer (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

As a strictly personal opinion, I think that it might make sense if the descriptions of the characters are comparatively short to include them in the summary of the plot. I guess my reason for saying this is at least in part based on the fact that, as of yet, these characters have no existence outside the scope of these books, and, in many cases, of this individual series within the broader series of books. Descriptions of the characteristics of the characters, such as, for instance, cowardice, courage, arrogance, mouthiness, or whatever, might be different, of course. But, based on what I've seen, I have no objections to the characters Brambleclaw mentions being described at some weight somewhere in the article. John Carter (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, John, I agree with what you've said so far. It could result in excessive plot summary, so I've written fairly short descriptions for each character, and linked as well to the individual character's section too. I've limited the descriptions here to what I see as most important to an understanding of the novel. If you like, you can give me some feedback on what I've written so far. Brambleclawx 18:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the inordinate delay, but it looks good so far. John Carter (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Cptnono (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Sourcing
    • This was delisted from GA due to the wandsandworlds community/forum site. I honestly could see allowing the transcripts of her conversations since it appears legit but it does not apear to be a reliable source per WP:IRS. If that site is being used, it needs to be brought up at the RS noticeboard since passing the article after it was demoted would be inappropriate.
    • Kate's blog initially appears to not be RS but it could be acceptable primary source. Personally, I am inclined to accept it as a primary source but it needs to be verifiable that it is actually her blog and not an impostor.
    • This forum is probably not RS. But again, it looks like the author is actually posting. Can this be verified? I hate to be a stickler but this sort of thing has principle's for a reason.
    • Several links to HarperCollins timed out. Are these dead links or is this a temporary error? Are these links verified in anything published so that we would not need a link?
    • Several foreign sales based sites (along with the domestic Amazon) are linked to. Are these actual RS? It might depend on the context of the what is being verified but so many sales based sites instead of something that has a reputation for fact checking (newspaper, magazine, academic piece, and so on) is a red flag. Something like this (ref 17) does not verify the text from what I can tell. I do not see anything about 3-d trading card from that index page (I do not read Han but Google attempted).
    • Minor formatting errors in the refs. The New York Times should be italicized. Consider spelling out DC Public Library.
  • Image looks like its FUR is more than sufficient.
  • Why is "Clans" capped?
We have discussed this several times a WikiProject; the "Clans" are all capitalized in the books. ThunderClan, WindClan, etc., making the "Clan" a part of the name, not just a label. PrincessofLlyr royal court 14:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • List of Warriors characters should be linked but some sort of summary style paragraph would be appropriate in this article. The plot section might lay out the characters enough so this is questionable.
  • The entire "Synopsis" section is not referenced. Although we can find the info in the book, an entire section not referenced won't work.
  • Direct quotes need refs.

The layout, length of the lead, image, overall base, and other aspects are perfectly fine. However, I a failing this at this time since the sourcing issue will be an in depth discussion that requires a noticeboard or a complete reworking of the sourcing. Both of which would take too long to warrant keeping this on hold.

Well-written: (a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and

  • Pass for the most part (why is "Clans" capped, though?)

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

  • Pass (fiction standards applies and was not overdone but it was not sourced)

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

  • Fail

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and

  • Fail

(c) it contains no original research.

  • Pass

Broad in its coverage: (a)

  • Questionable (Links to a list of characters but does not summarize it)

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

  • Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

  • Pass. Handles conflicting reviews well.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4] Illustrated, if possible, by images:[ (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

  • Pass.

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

  • Pass

Cptnono (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


Thank you for taking the time to review this. Sourcing is definitely a real issue with Warriors books. I will take the Wands and Worlds transcripts to RSN. I should think that Kate Cary herself is the one blogging, seeing as she seems to have the ability to reveal cover pictures before they are released. The forum should also be Victoria Holmes posting (mentioned in an author chat, so, again, it comes down to whether Wands and Worlds is counted as RS). All foreign sales sites are the actual publisher's website, so should be RS, seeing as all that's being referenced is release dates (and existence, I suppose). The 3-d trading card can be seen, if you scroll down. There is an image of it on the page. Will fix formatting. As Princess says, Clans is capitalised in the books, so per MOS, follow the sources. I considered having a characters section, but then I'd have to seek consensus on how to determine which characters are important enough to be mentioned on this page (seeing as there were at least 15 characters who played significant roles in the story). I'm wasn't aware that any of the quotes were unreferenced. I will check that. Oh and I;m quite sure plot summaries do not need to be referenced. Most FA exemplars at WP:MOSFICTION don't have references for the plot summary. Brambleclawx 23:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Wands and Worlds: Taken to RSN, seems to be acceptable.
  • Kate Cary's blog: I highly doubt that it's an imposter... I'm not sure how exactly you want it proven, but it seems likely to be her, since she has access to unreleased book covers...
  • Forum is likely also not an imposter, seeing as that forum is connected to the official Warriors Website
  • I'm not having any problems viewing the HarperCollins pages, and I think these are the most reliable sources for the publication date
  • As mentioned above, these are the publisher's site themselves, and the only thing being referenced is the release date
  • Chinese ref corrected
  • Refs formatted
I appreciate the responses but this was already closed out so another review will have to be opened. Just for the feedback, I am responding:
  • I looked at a few FAs and it looks like some plot sections are not referenced. I was surprised by this even though it makes sense to see the external link. However, keep in mind that something that passed FA in 2007 may not pass now. I do see the precedent to not cite it even if I do not agree with it.
  • If you are going to get a section on characters in it would greatly improve the article.
  • RSN does not seem sufficient to me personally since one person over there cannot override others previously demoting the article. Hopefully more people will respond. I think it is a great example of an acceptable WP:QS. However, I have seen better sources not accepted at FA and since you would like to see this at FA I hope you appreciate a stricter interpretation of the standards. If only a couple more people seconded the assertion that it is acceptable I would not have any problems accepting it but I recommend asking some reviewers of FAs to see if they would accept it.
  • The blog really is fine as a selfpub. I think I was getting a little over picky after the other sourcing issues came up. Seemed like another possible flag so wanted to mention it. But yes, few editors will require that anything like that be verifiable that it is the author. Some editors are too strict.
  • HarperCollins is up now. Keep an eye on it since if it is not up when someone runs the check it will stall any pass. But ref 9 is unformatted and dead.
Good luck on this. You guys are well on your way so I hope the next nomination goes alright. Cptnono (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Questions whilst copyediting[edit]

On User: Brambleclawx's request, I have been slowly copyediting this article. Sorry about the hit-and-miss nature of it; unfortunately, that's the way my life is. Some questions and issues have come up that need more than I can address with a copyedit, and I've placed them below.

  • I've looked at the sources more closely, and I'm afraid that I agree with what other editors have said about some of them, specifically the chats. You say that it contains information that can't be gotten elsewhere. Wikipedia policy states that if you can't find information in a reliable source, then it shouldn't be put into a WP article. It's too difficult to find the information you use in the chats, amongst all the fluff and goofiness that's a part of any chat. But others have said similar things, so I won't repeat all that here. Chats are simply not reliable sources, sorry, and there's just no way to get past it. You might be able to find an editor to look past them and pass this article in a GAC, but I can promise you it won't be in FAC ten minutes before an editor there rejects it based on just this one thing. There are plenty of excellent articles in WP that don't pass as a GA or FA because of sourcing issues, though, and there's nothing wrong with it. If getting this and other Warriors articles to GA is important to you, though, I suggest that you remove all the information you get from the chats, or at least relegate them to a note, and wait and see if the information shows up in a more reliable source. Again, I'm sorry; I'm sure this disappoints you.
    • Done. You can take another quick look to see if there's anything that needs to fixed after this change: in particular, I notice that Inspiration and Influences is now a one paragraph section... Brambleclawx 14:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Thank you, well done. I loved your edit summary; yes, I know that these things are painful, but believe me, it's for the best. You should be able to get this article passed at GAC now. Christine (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "Collectively known as 'the Erins' in "Publication history and writing": *All* the "Erins" like this writer? Really? If so, that's very interesting, and for me, brings up the question, Is liking the author a requirement to write the series? Believe it or not, it's a serious question--actually, a chicken and the egg kind. Did the writers like this author before writing their books, or afterwards, as they became familiar with the genre? Actually, it also brings up another question: What was the criteria for choosing authors for the series? Is there any way you can find out?
    • It seems at least Victoria Holmes and Cherith Baldry like it. I could probably find whether or not Kate Cary likes it, but it would probably have to be a statement from her own blog. But no, picking Erin Hunters didn't have to do with liking the series. On Kate Cary's blog's FAQ, it mentions that she'd sent in writing samples to the publisher and they liked it... something like that. But I think this information fits better in Erin Hunter, not here. Brambleclawx 14:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Yah, you're probably right--about the EH article. Christine (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Characters: I wonder if the list should be structured differently. Currently, the characters are listed alphabetically, like all Character lists. What do you think about listing them by order of importance? Just a suggestion; it's up to you if you want to follow it.
    • To list them in importance-order might be seen as POV, I think. Peoples' opinions on which character was most important likely vary. Brambleclawx 14:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Again, you're right, of course. Christine (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • You keep saying, "[This character] who chosen to represent..." That's very redundant, and we haven't been told who Midnight is yet. Later on, you name the cats chosen to go on the quest, though. Therefore, I don't think you even need to mention that. You do, however, need to say what clans they are from. How about using this kind of format: "Brambleclaw, a dark brown tabby tom warrior with amber eyes from Thunderclan, is the son of Tigerstar and Goldenflower, and brother of Tawnypelt." I'll let you make those changes if you agree with my suggestion. Done.
  • Speaking of Feathertail: "She becomes increasingly close to Crowpaw..." You already state that these cats become close, so I'd cut that phrase if I were you. Question: Do they become close in the course of this book, or have they already been so?
    • I think they started becoming closer in Book 1, which is why I used "increasingly" to imply that they were already somewhat close. Brambleclawx 14:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • About Midnight: "...It is implied that she did this knowing the Tribe's prophecy." Which prophecy--the one about Feathertail's death? If so you could say, " is implied that she did this knowing the Tribe's prophecy regarding Feathertail's death." Done.
  • Setting: In order to follow my "No section should have a single paragraph" rule (which isn't really a WP policy; as I said above, it's my personal preference), I would put it in with the "Plot" section and rename it "Setting and plot." This is totally up to you, though.

Christine (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice job. Like I said above, with the sourcing issue, this article, with the changes suggested by the reviewer, has more potential to pass GAC now, especially with the sourcing issues resolved. It was very fun reading about the series; it's exactly the kind of book I probably would've liked as a kid. Christine (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. And of course, that's why I'm editing: to improve coverage, and allow others to discover Warriors. Brambleclawx 22:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Moonrise (Warriors)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    I made a number of minor copy-edits.[1]
    The synopsis section is usually placed above details of production, etc.
    Cherith Baldry said that it was hard to write the end of Moonrise and the death of Feathertail.[18] When asked why the authors kill off characters like Feathertail, Victoria Holmes, the editor, responded: "because deaths are so much fun to write about! Seriously, the essence of all good stories lies in drama and conflict, and what is more dramatic than losing a beloved character? This sentence should be in the preceding section
    in the case of Moonrise, there are at least 65 named characters Be a little more specific, please.
    Otherwise, the prose meets the "reasonably well written" criterion.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Amazon, Writers Unboxed, Wands and Worlds, Karen Cary's blog do not appear to be reliable sources. Can you demonstrate that they meet the WP:RS criteria?
    The School Library review cites should have the "subscription required" parameter.
    The Chinese article title needs to be translated into English, the language parameter should be used for foreign language sources
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    All the reviews are from US publications, it would be good to see reviews from other countries to ensure broad coverage.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    One image used with a non-free use rationale and caption
  7. Overall:
    The main problem is that this article has few reliable sources. On hold for seven days for these issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    Well, there seems to be little in the way of broad coverage of this subject, the cited chatroom manuscripts and the blog of another author give little or no detail about this book, so I will not be listing this. It may well be better merged into the parent article. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


In terms of the sources: I will try to replace the amazon references to references to the publisher, but I don't think HarperCollins provides a release date for its UK edition of Warriors (which is essentially the same as the US version). The next two sources you mention are Writers Unboxed and Wands and Worlds. In my usage of both sites, I have refrained from citing anything that could be seen as unreliable. What I am citing, if you check those pages, are interview tramscripts, the Wands and Worlds one being in the form of an author chat (I have only cited statements made by the authors, and not the other participants of the chat). I feel therefore that those two should be considered reliable, as they are not much different from any other interview transcript published on the internet. Kate Cary's blog: While I understand we don't normally cite blogs, the blog is written by Kate Cary, one of the Erin Hunters. If I remember correctly, what I've cited is an FAQ/about myself sort of page which she claims to have created to help students doing projects about her, or something along those lines. I'm not sure if you consider that reliable, but again, seeing as it essentially is more direct statements from the author(s), I personally feel that it is reliable (I mean, what author would stick lies about themselves on their own blog?) I may be kind of busy, this week, but will do my best to resolve the issues raised. Brambleclawx 01:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You need to demonstrate that these sources are reliable, which says: "How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it." The onus is on the source provider to prove its reliability. I note that the blog doesn't actually support the statement that it cites. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no use of any citations about Warriors anywhere. I can't prove that the sources I use are used in a widespread fashion, because no one uses them at all. Then again, there isn't any "widespread doubt" about the reliability of the author chats either, because, again there is no use of the source by anyone, thus there is no one to cast doubts. I will admit that Scottish Highlands are not mentioned on the blog, but it does mention Loch Lomond. Brambleclawx 22:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:RS#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves seems to okay the blog as a reference, and from my queries at the WP:RSN, it seems to okay the author chats as well. I think the question that needs to be asked here is not whether or not the publishers of these interviews are considered reliable by others, but rather "Is it likely that this transcript is made up, and said interview never occured?" Brambleclawx 22:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I've also already mentioned all reviews I could find. While I'd love to add foreign reviews, either I can't find them, or they just don't exist. There aren't many reviews in the US, so I doubt there can be many outside. I've removed all Amazon as references (which turned out to have been rather unnecessary anyway). Brambleclawx 22:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I realise that I've written quite a lot above in my response, so I'll give a short summary of the above here: I feel that these are reliable sources per WP:RS#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. One of the points under that section is that there be no reasonable doubt to its authenticity. These sources are likely to be authentic: for example, many people can attest to having participated in these author chats, and the authors often mention the author chats themselves, proving that they likely happened. I have also asked about the usage of these sources before on the RSN, and the two sections are here and here. I hope, therefore, that you will agree with me that these sources should be considered reliable. Brambleclawx 14:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Moonrise (Warriors)/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: -- Cirt (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC) I will review this article. -- Cirt (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold[edit]

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of May 21, 2011, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The writing quality is okay, but I would be more comfortable if at least one other previously uninvolved editor could go through it and perform some copyediting. Please try soliciting input from other previously uninvolved editors, and you can also try WP:GOCE, and posting to talk pages of relevant WikiProjects.
2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout, I see that some referencing improvements were made from the last GA review.
3. Broad in coverage?: Not yet passing here. Some subsections could be significantly expanded upon.
  • Lede/intro = The 2nd paragraph could be expanded a bit more.
  • Inspirations and influences = 2 one sentence paragraphs. Please expand this sect.
  • Critical reception = Fair, but not good. This could even be doubled in size. Perhaps expand a bit with more sources - and one-sentence-quotes from choice sources.
4. Neutral point of view?: Neutral presentation throughout, no issues here.
5. Article stability? Upon inspection of article edit history and talk page, no stability issues. No problems here.
6. Images?: One image used, fair use book cover, fair use rationale on image page. No issues here.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. -- Cirt (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


1. If you look at the section above, I actually got it copyedited by an uninvolved editor after the previous GAN. However, if you would like me to get it copyedited again, I can find someone. Please tell me if you would like another copyedit done as soon as possible, so I can find someone. Brambleclawx 20:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

3. I'm not sure there are any reliable sources left that I haven't used, so expansion may not be possible at the moment.

  • Yes, certainly please try to get at least one more previously uninvolved user for copyediting.
  • Perhaps you could solicit input from WikiProject members of relevant projects, and the copyeditor, for possible additional WP:RS secondary sources.

-- Cirt (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I did a couple searches through the various databases I have access too, and I am not finding anything more. Right now, I think we have the most comprehensive list you could expect, in the way of sources. In my experience, once more popular books are in the 3rd or 4th book of a series, publishers stop getting them reviewed by a large number of organizations (except maybe with Kirkus as was the case here). With children's literature this is also commonly the case, especially if they already have a good following. I think the article is in a good enough position source wise, Sadads (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but there is still lots of list-type-stuff that seems like it could be moved to separate standalone pages...... -- Cirt (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Not sure I understand what you mean by "list-type-stuff"... are you referring to the character list? I gave a "main article" link-thing for List of Warriors characters for that one, but someone suggested I list the most important characters here anyway. Unless you're talking about something else? Brambleclawx 14:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I took another look and that part is fine. Just please update here when copyediting is done, and when Reception has been expanded a tad bit more. -- Cirt (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe copyediting is essentially complete (save for a little removal of duplicate links). There were already quite a few quotations in the reception section, and I added an extra quotation. There aren't any more reviews from reviewers, unless you feel it appropriate to comment on comments made on the book at places like Google Books, and Amazon? Brambleclawx 22:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

GA passed[edit]

Thank you for addressing issues raised during the review. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Moonrise (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)