Talk:Snickelways of York

Snickelways of York was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 10, 2024	Good article nominee	Not listed

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Snickelways of York is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Highways: United Kingdom Low‑importance

	Roads portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of highways on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the United Kingdom Roads Task Force.

Reasons for GA failure

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

First: The article is simply not comprehensive enough. Can we find some history on these things? Why did they evolve like that? What role have they played in the city's growth and development. The term may be new but what it refers to isn't.

Second: Lack of key citations, despite brevity of article. "... and has even been used in official council documents". Something like this, especially when the article admits the term is a neologism, absolutely must be cited. Ditto with "...a technique which Jones explicitly acknowledged as inspired by the Pictorial Guides of Alfred Wainwright." If he said it somewhere, we need a note.

Third: Footnotes insufficient and not in the proper format.

It seems like there's a lot more to be done (I'd consider this article start-class at best at the moment), but certainly once these are addressed it can be renominated. Daniel Case 07:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Assessment comment

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Snickelways of York/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

.

References require improvement using one of the {{Cite}} templates
Requires expansion of history
Is there a suitable infobox?

Keith D 22:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Last edited at 22:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 06:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Add topic