Talk:Aberdeenshire (historic)
 | Aberdeenshire (historic) was nominated as a Geography and places good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 1, 2021). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911
edit
Either the 1911 text ought to be integrated into this article and modernised, or it ought to be deleted as there is a copy on wikisource. --PBS (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Requested move 15 August 2019
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: withdrawn. Steel1943 (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Aberdeenshire (historic) → County of Aberdeen – The disambiguator "(historic)" is a confusing disambiguator, especially considering that other topics listed Aberdeenshire (disambiguation) could be considered "historic". In addition, in addition to the previously-mentioned issue, this article can/should be moved to County of Aberdeen per WP:NATURALDIS. Steel1943 (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Including ~shire is standard for historic Scottish counties - see Category:Counties of Scotland. This is also the disambiguation used for Renfrewshire (historic). There's no case made to make Aberdeenshire a special case. Timrollpickering (Talk) 13:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Aberdeenshire (historic)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 04:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Apologies, but I'm going to have to quickfail this, per quickfail criteria #1 ("it is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria") and #3 ("it has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid"). The article is overwhelmingly taken from Britannica 1911, which by current standards is barely acceptable in articles at all now, let alone GAs. The original content has significant uncited passages/CN tags, and is frequently drawn from questionable sources (e.g. Geni.com, which is generally unreliable per User:Headbomb/unreliable -- that source is also a bare URL). This would need a substantial rewrite to meet GA criteria. Vaticidalprophet 04:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)