Talk:The Spook's Apprentice
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fair use rationale for Image:Latscan2.jpg edit
Image:Latscan2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Notice: This article lacks WP:A to establish WP:FICTION edit
In my opinion, this article either lacks sufficient Attribution that it satisfies the Notability criteria for Fiction, or it may violate the Conflict of interest guideline, or perhaps it is a Copyright violation.
Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources to verify any claims of notability. Even though the lack of reliable source attribution in an article is not grounds for deletion in itself, an article with absolutely no sources (or only external links to unreliable ones) suggests to some editors that multiple reliable sources may not, in fact, exist.
Although I am considering tagging this article for deletion according to the Deletion policy, I am nonetheless willing to assist recent contributors to this article, to make some constructive improvements to it ... I do not have time to examine this article in depth at the moment, and it may improve over time, in which case this warning was premature.
Please respond on this Discussion page, instead of on my Talk page, in order to avoid fragmenting the conversation.
To better understand why I have used this template, please read Flag templates for deletion warnings ... I realize that some of the expressed possible concerns may not be appropriate in this case. —triwbe (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the [[Category:Flagged articles]] from
the message above
. it was flagged at least two months ago by Some Other Editor,
but the current version looks OK to me. Avicennasis @ 06:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect edit
The Other Books section at the bottom states Spook's Curse is one of the last books, and Battle is the second. This is incorrect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.97.87 (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)