Talk:Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards

Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 3, 2018.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 29, 2008	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
March 7, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
March 21, 2008	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Comics Mid‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been selected for use on the Comics portal.

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics 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.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History of Science Low‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notability[edit]

This is very well-written article, but isn't it the Bone Wars that are notable rather than this graphic novel? I see no indication that this graphic novel is notable in any way and almost gave it the "spam" tag. Can you explain? House of Scandal 18:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there currently are no hard and fast rules for comic books/graphic novels as of now, but I think that as per WP:NOTE this satisfies at least these criteria for books:

The book's author meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for people, based on his/her work as a writer. (applying to Ottaviani).

In addition, it meets this:

Books should have at a minimum an ISBN number (for books published after 1966), be available at a dozen or more libraries and be catalogued by its country of origin's official or de facto national library. (I have put on the ISBN, and it has a National Library of Congress number as well.)

I believe it also passes the "Google test", as poor an indicator as that may be (11,700). I certainly applaud your commitment to notability and trash, but I believe this sits well will several guidelines. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 22:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. However, note that having an ISBN is an exclusionary guideline rather than an inclusionary one (see Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria). The only one that is possibly met is that the author is notable, barely. As the guidelines themselves state, they are guidelines rather than hard rules. Here are the criteria:

A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets one or more of the following criteria:

The book's author meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for people, based on his/her work as a writer.
The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theatres.
The book has won a non-trivial literary award.
The book is taught at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
The book has been the subject^[1] of multiple, independent, non-trivial^[2] reviews in works meeting our standards for reliable sources. Reviews in periodicals that review thousands of books a year with little regard for notability, such as Publisher's Weekly, Library Journal and Kirkus Reviews do not meet this criterion.
The book has been the subject^[1] of multiple, non-trivial^[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews.
- The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flapcopy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book^[3]

What is clear to me is that this article violates the spirit of these rules. This book deserves a mention in the author's article but as it is, this article seems more like an advertisement. House of Scandal 22:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the rest of it. Frankly, I still believe it should stay. Be whatever the case about the article, 'guidelines rather than rules' cuts both ways. But I have no issue bringing it to an AfD, if that is your wish. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 23:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I won't drag it that far as per the Wikipedia guideline "don't be a dick." Not going to AfD with this article is in accordance with my personal Wikipedia motto:

When you have bigger fish to fry, let the small fry go.

To add a third cliché to the mix, I'll try to be part of the solution; what this article is lacking is a mention of Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards from a third party source. I'll try to find one. House of Scandal 00:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah... so are we still in second stage of hell with this? Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 23:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. The tag is removed. I hope, however, you will add what the article needs: two or three third-party quotes about this book so to establish its notability. Yeah, I said I'd look...but since you're the one advocating for the article I want to hand you that torch and just walk away from this. House of Scandal 08:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment.
^ ^a ^b "Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves notable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is notable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source.
^ Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the book. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material). The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its author, publisher, vendor or agent) have actually considered the book notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.

Comments[edit]

Well, this morning, I clicked "edit" and started typing comments on the FAC for this article. One thing led to another and I didn't click "save" until just now, only to discover that the nom was closed and archived in the mean time. I'm copying my comments here in case anyone wants to pursue a future nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 18:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- Can you provide the genre field in the infobox?
- Who is Big Time Attic? Is that a company or a person? I see you explain later in the Background heading, but if there is no article, I think you need to provide brief context here or create a stub and wikilink.
- "This novel is the first historically fictitious work Ottaviani has done..." Written?
- "Following the two scientists Edward Drinker Cope and Othniel Marsh as they engage in an intense rivalry, Ottaviani has the two scientists interact and meet many important figures of the Gilded Age, from P. T. Barnum to U.S. Grant in their hotheaded and sometimes illegal pursuits." The scientists' pursuits or the important figures' pursuits?
- The lead confuses the amount of fiction in the story. It's referred to as "slightly fictionalized" which implies mostly true, then "historical fiction" which implies 100% fiction. Then you say critics wished there was more fiction.
- "According to author Jim Ottaviani, he was drawn to the subject..." Seems unnecessarily wordy. Why not just: "Author Jim Ottaviani was drawn to the subject..."?
- When you get into the Background section, you write that Ottaviani met Cannon and Ottaviani was "willing" to show Big Time Attic his proposal. This implies that Ottaviani was giving this new firm some needed business. However, later you quote Ottaviani as saying he was lucky to get this novel published, implying the reverse relationship. It doesn't follow, logically.
- "One of Ottaviani's bits of creative license was to transport the artist Charles Knight earlier into the story than originally intended." Intended is an ambiguous term here - do you mean earlier than Ottaviani had planned in early drafts? Or earlier than it actually historically happened?
- Unclear how the Knight manuscript "solidified" his role in the book. The term implies that Ottaviani wasn't sure if he wanted to include Knight, but after getting the manuscript was convinced.
- Is it GT Labs (infobox and external links) or G.T. Labs (text)?
- The prose in the Plot summaries is good, although I'm struggling with the issue of sourcing. Obviously the book is the source - it needs to be listed in the References section. Consider footnoting major plot events to page numbers in the book for verifiability.
- Check for hyphens that should be em dashes, especially in the Characters section.
- General concern about unsourced statements in the Character section. Two statements cross the line from recounting into interpretation which in this context is OR unless you have a source:
  - "Ottaviani portrays Cope as the more sympathetic of the two scientists."
  - "As a plot device, Ottaviani introduces Knight to Cope earlier than historically recorded."

--Laser brain (talk) 18:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA pass[edit]

A fine read. Not much else to say. Wrad (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAR[edit]

The sourcing in this article isn't all that great. Almost 3/4 of the footnotes are the book itself, and I'm not sure what makes pages like Bookslut.com or Sequential Tart reliable. If the sourcing is not improved, then I'm taking this to WP:FAR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The citations to the book are primarily for sourcing the plot; that's hardly problematic. As for the other sources, I suggest you read the FAC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the last paragraph under "Reception" needs a citation. FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

URFA/2020 notes[edit]

I am marking this Satisfactory at WP:URFA/2020, but the following should be addressed:

Citation style is inconsistent: some use the rp template for page numbers, while others have pages within the citations.
The Wallace, Jaffe and Adams books are missing page numbers.

Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[subject-1] The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment.

[nontrivial-2] "Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves notable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is notable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source.

[3] Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the book. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material). The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its author, publisher, vendor or agent) have actually considered the book notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.

[1]

[2]

[3]