Talk:Readers' advisory
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Readers' advisory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Readers' advisory was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Former good article nominee | |||||||||||||
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
edit- This review is transcluded from Talk:Readers' advisory/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi. I'm reviewing this article for GA promotion. Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello again. This is definately not a GA. I'm putting it on hold, but if nothing is done soon, I'm just going to fail the nomination. Here are some recommendations that are definately needed:
- Have the two people in the first image given their permission? (see tag on picture page).
- Starting out with a long quote isn't as good as summarizing the quote.
- You title a section Opposing Viewpoints on the Merits of Different Types of Readers' Advisory, but it's just about two views on the timeline of readers' advisory, not the merits of different types.
- Also, you discuss two different timelines, and then you use a third timeline (1870-1980 and 1980-2000s)! Choose one and run with it!
- Parenthesis around the history section titles = not needed
- You start timeline section one with 1870, but your earliest reference is 1897.
- Incorporate the quote at the end of "current interest"! Summarize it or something!
- No refs in direct readers' advisory!
- I don't like "Questions to consider asking in the readers' advisory interview". It sounds like it's asking the reader questions. Also, it's a bit out of place; consider putting the section somewhere better or incorporate it into another section. Also, no refs in this section.
*Red links in the Resource sections! GAH!
- Update: I got yelled at a couple of times for this. Apparently red links are fine to leave. :)
- Get rid of any "floating quotes" (term coined by me, just now), like the one at the end of Internet Resources
- A few of your resources are red-links! That's bad!
- There's an amazon.com ad page as one of your refs. (#5)
- I'm not sure what all of the links to Library Unlimited contribute to the article.
- A lot of your refs are just ads for books; they're not directly related to readers' advisory.
- For refs like #45, on the article page write what library catalog it's from.
Just read through the article and work on clarifying it. It shouldn't be too hard to improve this; some work has been done. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Update
Hey, I went over WP:LEAD, and it suggests that the lead be two or three paragraphs for an article of this length. Since there is a lot of work still to be done on this article before it is promoted to GA, I'm delisting it from WP:GAC for now. Sorry. Feel free to promote it another time! Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Readers' advisory. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080917001830/http://www.askalibrarian.org:80/aal.asp? to http://www.askalibrarian.org/aal.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- 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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)