This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animals in media, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Animals in mediaWikipedia:WikiProject Animals in mediaTemplate:WikiProject Animals in mediaAnimals in media articles
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of November 5, 2010, compares against the six good article criteria:
1. Well written?: Writing is generally good enough for WP:GA quality. It could use a bit of copyediting for flow, readability, and a rare comment but in some places actually seems too succinct - would suggest contacting WP:GOCE, relevant WikiProject talk pages, and doing a peer review, going forward.
2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout.
3. Broad in coverage?: Very interesting stuff, I especially like the in-depth sect, Development and publication. I would highly suggest expanding the sect, Scholarly commentaries - perhaps even double or triple in size, with other secondary source coverage.
4. Neutral point of view?: Appears to be neutral, yes.
5. Article stability? No major issues upon inspection of article edit history, or talk page.
6. Images?: 7 images used, all seem to be free use on this project, or located on Wikimedia Commons. Passes here, as well.
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— -- Cirt (talk) 05:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this section is probably largely redundant, since we have an entire biography of Beatrix Potter already; the exception is its final sentence and a half, which could be incorporated in the appropriate place within the following section "Development and Publication". Does anyone have any serious objection if the "Background" section is cut, so we can get straight to the background of the story's creation? Alfietucker (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, a whole week has gone by without any objection being raised, so I'll go ahead and cut "Background". I've transferred some of its more unique information over to the main Beatrix Potter article. Alfietucker (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good article where 86% of the prose comes from LTA ItsLassieTime and their sock Susanne2009NYC. The article is listed at WP:CCI on the ItsLassieTime case. I think that this needs a careful review, but ILT has a penchant for using plenty of offline source so this may be difficult. There is a high level of copyright violations within this CCI, but I don't want this delisted sheerly for the sake of being edited by a sock and therefore subject to WP:CVREPEAT and presumptive deletion. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
