Talk:Bell Tower (University of Portland)/Archive 1
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Sources
Coordinates?
@Jonesey95 and Lockley: Might one of you be able to add coordinates to this article? Then, I can add a map. Thanks for any help in advance. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- hi there @Another Believer: -- coordinates done, happy to help --Lockley (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Lockley: Thank you! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
GA Review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Bell Tower (University of Portland)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 01:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Style
Resolved
|
---|
@Kingsif: Just a heads up, the article has now received a copy edit by a volunteer with the Guild of Copy Editors. These changes have been made to the article. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
|
Verifiability
Extended content
|
---|
@Kingsif: Apart from the copyright issue (which can be addressed separately in the section below, have your concerns in this section been addressed? If so, are you open to marking as resolved or collapsing so we can focus on remaining concerns? Not required, just trying to be organized here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC) @Another Believer: Yes, this section is resolved, good job. Kingsif (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
|
Coverage
Extended content
|
---|
|
Neutrality
Extended content
|
---|
|
Stability
Extended content
|
---|
|
Illustration
Extended content
|
---|
|
Copyright
Extended content
|
---|
|
Because of grammar, formatting, verifiability, subject focus, and copyright issues that together amount to quite severe, this article would need substantial work to meet Good article criteria. Therefore, I will fail the article nomination. (Justification for immediate failures: 1 "It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria", 2 "It contains copyright infringements", and 3 "It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid") Kingsif (talk) 01:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Kingsif: Thanks for reviewing this article and returning here to reply to my questions. I am committed to getting this article promoted to Good status when the time is right. I am currently traveling, so I need to take a short break from addressing your concerns (there are not too many left to resolve). I don't mean to put any more work on you, but if you want to take a stab at improving how the quotations are incorporated, or make other wording changes, you are more than welcome to make improvements rather than having me guess and ping for further review. Of course, either way I will revisit this review and make further improvements to the articles once I am settled back at home. Thanks again for your help. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Another Believer: That's great to hear, I might contribute a bit, because I feel it is getting close to be nominated again. Remaining issues with some prose and clarity, and the outstanding paraphrasing, once resolved I hope you nominate it again. Kingsif (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks very much. Yes, concerns are close to being resolved and I do plan to renominate once you give the go ahead. I will try to upload my photographs soon as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Another Believer: That's great to hear, I might contribute a bit, because I feel it is getting close to be nominated again. Remaining issues with some prose and clarity, and the outstanding paraphrasing, once resolved I hope you nominate it again. Kingsif (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Kingsif: No rush, but you've mentioned a willingness to address your own final concerns, so I'm wondering if you'd like to do so before we decide if re-nominating for Good article status is appropriate. I can't thank you enough for revisiting this review as many times as you have. I think the article is definitely in a better state. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
@Another Believer: Yes, I have now made some style tweaks and rephrased the copyright concern. That seems to be most of it. Nice article. Kingsif (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Kingsif: Thank you! Would you be comfortable with me re-nominating for Good status? You're welcome to complete the review, or leave for someone else. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- Go ahead Kingsif (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks! Archiving this review as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- Go ahead Kingsif (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
GA Nomination 1
At this time, there are too many issues for this to be a Good article. However, I hope that my review has detailed what needs to be done and that it can be improved! I'm a big supporter of university landmarks getting good coverage on Wikipedia. Kingsif (talk) 01:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Kingsif: Huh, I am quite surprised by your assessment. Haven't failed a good article nomination is quite a long time, and usually I am given time to address concerns before an assessment is complete or an article failed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- @AnotherBeliever: I guess I'm sorry about that, but my justification for a speedy failure is at the bottom. Of the 4 different reasons a nomination could immediately fail, this article meets 3 (when it only needs 1). The sections need better formatting, there's some lack of necessary citations, it needs copyediting, as well as some rewriting to resolve potential copyright violation. Those things can't be overlooked, and unless editing this page is your full-time job, it's significant work for most people. I really mean it when I say I want it to be good, though. Kingsif (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Link to Mary garden?
@Twofingered Typist: I noticed you removed the link around Mary garden when you changed "Mary garden" to "Marian garden". I'm curious if this was intentional. Should we link "Marian garden" to Mary garden? I admit, I was not familiar with the term, and others may be unfamiliar as well. Thanks for reviewing this article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding the link back! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Another Believer: We had an edit conflict and my note to you was lost. I was going to say Mary Garden linked to an opera singer. I didn't think to try Mary garden which is the link we wanted. I fixed the error in that article where Mary Garden appears in error! I've scanned the comments by the GA reviewer, some of which surprise me. Have a look at what I've done and let me know if you want me to go through their comments in detail and see if anything else needs to be done. I can't see why it would fail in its current form. Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Twofingered Typist: Thanks, and sorry for the edit conflict. If there's anything you feel particularly strongly about, feel free to comment, otherwise I think User:Kingsif and I are working together nicely to improve the article. I plan to re-nominate for Good status again soon. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Another Believer: We had an edit conflict and my note to you was lost. I was going to say Mary Garden linked to an opera singer. I didn't think to try Mary garden which is the link we wanted. I fixed the error in that article where Mary Garden appears in error! I've scanned the comments by the GA reviewer, some of which surprise me. Have a look at what I've done and let me know if you want me to go through their comments in detail and see if anything else needs to be done. I can't see why it would fail in its current form. Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Another Believer: No, that's fine. Best of luck moving forward. Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Twofingered Typist: Thanks, and thanks again for taking time to review this article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Another Believer: No, that's fine. Best of luck moving forward. Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)