Talk:Readers' advisory/GA1

GA 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

fixed JohnRussell (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• 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)