# Talk:Artemis Fowl (novel)

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of March 23, 2008, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass - lead needed some expansion to include more details of plot.
2. Factually accurate?: Pass, issues with film section solved by it's removal. Be careful of the addition of original research to themes section which should be exapnded with information on themes of the book from author interviews if possible
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass - good selection of positive and negative reviews of the book
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass
  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.— Million_Moments (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Great! *horray* :) Thanks much. :) Ale_Jrbtalk 23:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

So here's the FA criteria:

A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

It is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
(a) ? "Well-written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of professional standard.
(b)  "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.
(c)  "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate.
(d)  "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias.
(e)  "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day, except for edits made in response to the featured article process.
It follows the style guidelines, including:
(a)  a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections;
(b)  a system of hierarchical headings and table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming (see section help);
(c)  consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1), where they are appropriate (see 1c). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)
 It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must meet the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
? It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
I have marked the ones we definitely meet with "" , and marked the ones that need work with "?". Calvin 1998 (t-c) 03:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
So we're pretty close. However, I think that the plot summary could use a little rephrasing/grammar. I don't know about the length issue, though. IceUnshattered (talk) 01:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It says that Artemis Fowl II is the protagonist of the book. I'd say that this is a bit biased... or is it actually fine? Unidentified Flying Bunny in the Sky Talk Contribs 01:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, isn't he? Calvin 1998 (t-c) 01:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, there was a section in the article about how the "good" and "bad" wasn't defined very clearly... something about how Artemis was antagonistic when kidnapping Holly/from the fairies' POV, he was a "bad guy" but then again the fairies weren't exactly sparkling either... *cough* Cudgeon.
And how'd you get this comment so fast? Are all the pages in the project on your watchlist? Unidentified Flying Bunny in the Sky Talk Contribs 03:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this page has been a good article nominee since last week, so it's on my watchlist. I've got quite a few of the articles on my watchlist, too. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 03:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I've changed protagonist to main character... cept that Holly was a main character too... Unidentified Flying Bunny in the Sky Talk Contribs 18:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd say protagonist is better, the "definition" of protagonist is the character that undergoes change because of what happens in the plot, and that's definitely Artemis (changing from greedy to nice).Calvin 1998 (t-c) 18:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
If you want... I'm not going to get into an argument about this. Depends on what side you're on. Unidentified Flying Bunny in the Sky Talk Contribs 20:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't really think you can say he's the antagonist of the book, because later he can be counted as the protagonist.  People change.  -EshInoBi (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
According to the blurb, in the first book he is an 'anti-hero'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.25.206 (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC) 

I'm not sure whether this topic has been brought up before, but I'm wondering whether we should capitalize "Ritual", as all mentions of it in the plot summary are not capitalized. Unless my memory fails me, as it has done before, I recall that the book consistently capitalized it. IceUnshattered (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I seem to remember that it was used as "The Ritual", as a proper noun, not "a ritual", a general noun. I'm for capitalizing "ritual", but I guess we should get more input. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 01:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
It is captilized in th book. Glimmer721 talk 19:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to add and link an article with the translation of the code running along the bottom of the book? Fairweather01 (talk) 08:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Add a new article, is that what you're saying? Check out WP:N, if that's so. IceUnshattered [ t ] 23:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone deleted USA Today's criticism of the novel. I added it back in; a variety of opinions keeps the article balanced and stops bias. Also, covering positive and negative reviews allowed this to become a GA. So, please, don't delete it again, no matter how much you love Artemis Fowl. Thanks. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)