Talk:Malcolm Mercer
 | Malcolm Mercer has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
GA Hold
editThis only has 10k of prose. Can it be expanded or more refs added?Rlevse 12:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Could you be a bit more specific? What aspects of Mercer's life do you feel are missing from the article?--Jackyd101 13:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's not that it's missing a major piece for GA status, it's just short, but not so short that it's an automatice failure. I was mainly just asking out of curiosity. Now if this were a FAC, it'd be different.Rlevse
- I'm a little confused now. I get that you believe the article is too short at the moment and I will endeavour to expand it if I can, although this may be difficult given avaliable sources etc. However, I do not understand what you mean by "if this was an FAC is would be different"? Clearly the article is not long enough for FA standard which is why I brought it to GA. I actually believe, given the limited interest and sources on this man (after all, he did of significant interest was to lead a Canadian division for a year and then die in action) that expansion to FA may well be impossible at this time. I also don't think that length is actually an actionable complaint. Whilst I will endeavour to expand the article, I would be interested in your feedback on other areas of the article (i.e. sourcing, prose, pictures etc.) and also, what if it cannot be significantly expanded? Will you then fail it?--Jackyd101 15:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's not that it's missing a major piece for GA status, it's just short, but not so short that it's an automatice failure. I was mainly just asking out of curiosity. Now if this were a FAC, it'd be different.Rlevse
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Malcolm Mercer. 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/20110706181817/http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/engraph/Vol8/no1/PDF/11-mackinnon_e.pdf to http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/engraph/Vol8/no1/PDF/11-mackinnon_e.pdf
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://torontofreemasons.ca/about_us.html - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706181817/http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/engraph/Vol8/no1/PDF/11-mackinnon_e.pdf to http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/engraph/Vol8/no1/PDF/11-mackinnon_e.pdf
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://torontofreemasons.ca/about_us.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) 03:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)