Talk:The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 13:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Union ban

I can't find any references, either in English or in Russian, that confirm the alleged ban of "The Adventures" in the Soviet Union. At least two stories from the collection ("The Red-Headed League" and "The Blue Carbuncle") were printed in Russian during 1930's and 1940's, and the complete collection was printed as part of the classic Russian-language eight volume collection of Conan Doyle's works in 1966.

It is true that at least some of the Conan Doyle's works were censored in Russian, partly because of his infatuation with occultism (in particular, "The Valley of Fear" was only printed in abridged form, some stories from "The Case-Book" were rarely printed, "The Mystery of Cloomber" was only printed once, and "The Valley of Mist" was not available at all till 1990's), but "The Adventures" probably weren't affected. --Itinerant1 (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 17:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 17:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I grow old and forgetful. A few sentences into this excellent article I realised I had read it before – when it was at peer review. I don't think having been a peer reviewer inhibits me from reviewing the article for GAN, and therefore...

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Unarguably good, in my view, and distinctly an article rather than a list. A delight to revisit (though "The Speckled Band" may keep me awake tonight). Now then, I am supposed to prod a recipient of a GA promotion into reviewing someone else's nomination from the long list of candidates: what comes around goes around you know, so pray ponder, Harrias and wade in if you can. Tim riley talk 19:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)