Peer review Edit

Well, I'm hoping for this to be the first novel to be Featured - and the material is there, I just think it could use some re-phrasing and editing; I'd also like to hear what others think it could use. I'd like to see the last two summaries shortened a little (to remove what isn't as important) and to clear up the wording. (ie: I tend to use more commas then nessesary, and it makes some sentences sound weird even to me.) - AJ Halliwell 23:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, seems no one is interested. --Alan del Beccio 22:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

FA status vs splitting up individual booksEdit

The rest of the SCE series is slowly being converted to the standards we've set elsewhere on MA/en (ie, articles for individual entries, and the omnibus is merely showing the collected version, linking to the individual entries). Having said that, this is a featured article (as noted above) dating from earlier this year. As such, I'm currently a bit loathe to split this one up without some further discussion as to what the current FA status will result in... Thoughts? -- sulfur (talk) 14:54, October 14, 2015 (UTC)

This should be handeled the same way splitting Constitution class model was, as in the current article after the split "can't" be a FA, in this case because almost all of the content is going elsewhere, as opposed to all of the content for CCM, but the split off parts could be FAs, and at least should be reviewed. - Archduk3 18:39, October 14, 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind taking the lead on that? I'm not sure how to approach/deal with that, and you've been the lead on FAs to date...

As things stand, it's the only SCE omnibus not "split". -- sulfur (talk) 18:58, October 14, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not taking the lead on anything other than leaving wikia for the time being, and I really don't have the time for that right now either. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I really don't think I can stomach "working" for them anymore, especially with them thinking they can do whatever the hell they want with our content.
That said, I would split the article using temp pages under the redirects, so they still work for the time being, and then start a FA review for the new articles. One overall discussion should be enough for people to decide if they're up to snuff individually. Several temps under the current blurb also need to be created, since almost nothing from the current blurb is salvageable, and the new ones will all have to be approved. If any of the pages pass muster, the {{featured}} template already has variables for showing the pre and post split history, and the FA discussions just need to be copied to the new talk pages. If none of them pass, simply split the article and put the review discussion here under the nomination.
In short, just follow the CCM discussion precedent in the archive; it was a major pain to create, so it would be nice if it was of some use to somebody other than myself. ;) - Archduk3 04:27, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

This has now been done here. -- sulfur (talk) 13:10, October 16, 2015 (UTC)