![]() | Glarentza has been listed as one of the
History 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. Review: May 14, 2014. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Glarentza appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 22 May 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
... I took out the phrase "although an Englishman would tell you that it is more likely ...". The unfootnoted Englishman probably isn't neutral. His opinion, whoever he is, has some support but no certainty: see footnote at Duke of Clarence. Andrew Dalby 17:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Caponer ( talk · contribs) 02:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Cplakidas, I hereby announce that I would be privilege to review this article thoroughly within the next few days. Please let me know in the meantime if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you for committing so much effort to craft this superb article! -- Caponer ( talk) 02:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Cplakidas, I've completed my review of this article, and I find that it meets the criteria for Good Article status. Before passing this article, however, I do have a few comments and questions that I have shared below. Once these have been addressed sufficiently, we will begin the process of passing this article to Good Article status. Thank you for your thorough research of this topic, and for writing such a comprehensive article on this mostly forgotten populated place. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns for me in the meantime! --
Caponer (
talk) 23:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Lead
History
Location and archaeological remains
Overall
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Glarentza. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Glarentza has been listed as one of the
History 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. Review: May 14, 2014. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Glarentza appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 22 May 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
... I took out the phrase "although an Englishman would tell you that it is more likely ...". The unfootnoted Englishman probably isn't neutral. His opinion, whoever he is, has some support but no certainty: see footnote at Duke of Clarence. Andrew Dalby 17:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Caponer ( talk · contribs) 02:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Cplakidas, I hereby announce that I would be privilege to review this article thoroughly within the next few days. Please let me know in the meantime if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you for committing so much effort to craft this superb article! -- Caponer ( talk) 02:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Cplakidas, I've completed my review of this article, and I find that it meets the criteria for Good Article status. Before passing this article, however, I do have a few comments and questions that I have shared below. Once these have been addressed sufficiently, we will begin the process of passing this article to Good Article status. Thank you for your thorough research of this topic, and for writing such a comprehensive article on this mostly forgotten populated place. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns for me in the meantime! --
Caponer (
talk) 23:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Lead
History
Location and archaeological remains
Overall
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Glarentza. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)