Talk:Harry M. Wegeforth

Why "Start" class?

I object to the rating of this article as "start class" in all categories. This is the definition of "start class":

An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and may require further reliable sources.

More detailed criteria:

The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. Quality of the prose may be distinctly une ncyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.

I don't this is a fair description of this article. I submit (perhaps out of vanity since I wrote the article) that the article rates at least a "C Class" rating - and I don't see why it isn't a "B". "B" criteria are:

The article meets the six B-Class criteria:

1) The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of either ref tags or citation templates such as cite web is not required. 2) The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. 3) The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. 4) The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously. 5) The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.

6) The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.

Remember that "Start," "A", "B", "C" etc. ratings are not about the article's IMPORTANCE; they are about its QUALITY. MelanieN (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I definitely agree with C-class, and have reassessed the article. I don't have time to really go digging about Wedgeforth, so this may indeed be all there is to say about him, but in general I would expect a B-class article to be about twice this long with (consequently) at least twice the number of citations. There are also no photos -- again not an absolute requirement, but I have a hard time believing that there are no appropriate photos of Wegeforth that we could use. Don Lammers (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, that's fair. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Harry M. Wegeforth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150722101643/http://www.sandi.net/domain/5492 to http://www.sandi.net/domain/5492
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101206132749/http://www.sandiegozoo.org/disclaimers/aboutus.html to http://www.sandiegozoo.org/disclaimers/aboutus.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)