Talk:Hendrik Pieter Nicolaas Muller
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hendrik Pieter Nicolaas Muller article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Hendrik Pieter Nicolaas Muller was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Delisted good article | |||||||||||||
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Assessment
editThe priority for this article in WPBiography is set at 'low'. I would want to suggest this to be set to 'high', as Muller fulfils the criteria for it. He 'had a large impact in [his] main discipline', namely representing the Orange Free State and the Boer cause in Europe during the Second Boer War. He was known and is remembered for it in The Netherlands, South Africa, and Great Britain, making the second criterium ('Had some impact outside their country of origin') also valid. Michel Doortmont 28 feb 2008 10:08 CET —Preceding comment was added at 09:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Survey
editWP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.
- Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?
- Yes please.
- If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?
- Academic writing, short (articles) and long texts (books) on history and international relations, lecture notes and presentations, etc., etc.
- Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?
- In format and somewhat in style by WikiProject Biography.
At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Will do. Michel Doortmont (talk) 09:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
GA assessment
editGA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This article is well on its way to GA status, passing almost all criteria. However, there are two problems:
- It misses inline citations to the references provided, and
- The section 'Dutch history and heritage' needs editing.
Therefore put on hold for the moment.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Makeshift Thackery (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Passed article; Makeshift Thackery seems to have left, and all issues seem addressed. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- All issues except failing citerion 2B, which remains an issue today. – Editør (talk) 09:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Inline citations
editThis article almost completely lacks inline citations, which is a major issue in regard to retaining its good article status. – Editør (talk) 09:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
GA Reassessment
edit- This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Hendrik Pieter Nicolaas Muller/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
Has very few inline citations so can not be considered a WP:Good Article. AIRcorn (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Delisted Mostly uncited. AIRcorn (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)