Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
Harry Yount 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: June 3, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Harry Yount 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 |
A fact from Harry Yount appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 17 December 2010, and was viewed approximately 11,900 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 16:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This article seems to have some factual errors, and relies on just one source. I am re-writing the article using William Supernaugh's well referenced article on Yount's life as the primary source, and using a variety of other sources as well. Cullen328 ( talk) 20:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Cullen328 ( talk · contribs) asked me to take a look at this article in preparation for a GA nomination, so here are my observations:
Lead
Date and place of birth
Civil War military service
Hunter and trapper
Gamekeeper in Yellowstone National Park
First National Park Ranger
Homesteader and prospector
Malleus Fatuorum 15:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 02:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 02:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
On first pass, this appears to be an exceptionally well-constructed article. I made a few small tweaks; please feel free to revert any with which you disagree. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 23:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Prose is excellent; spotchecks show no copyright issues. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | I realize that this is contrary to the advice you got from another commenter, but the lead actually seems a touch long to me for the size of this article. It's within GA requirements, though, and I don't think it's necessary to change it. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. 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). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | Pass as GA |
In response to the request on my talk page, I'd like to offer the following comments on this article:
My thanks again to Nick-D for the detailed critique and Cassianto for words of encouragement. Thanks also to the editor who assisted so graciously and thoughtfully during the GA review, years ago, and who has offered other positive comments much more recently. I apologize for putting this project on the back burner for a while, but it would be nice to improve it to FA standards now. I have made some minor preliminary improvements. I have responded to most if not all of the comments in Nick-D's preliminary review. I will work more on that tomorrow. I would be very grateful for any constructive criticism, especially the easily actionable items, but I will certainly take major issues to heart. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Cullen328: - I'm not convinced that the link to John W. Phelps is correct. John W. Phelps didn't have anything to do with the Missouri regiment or Pea Ridge, while John S. Phelps seems to be who should be referred to here. Hog Farm Talk 18:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
Harry Yount 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: June 3, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Harry Yount 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 |
A fact from Harry Yount appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 17 December 2010, and was viewed approximately 11,900 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 16:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This article seems to have some factual errors, and relies on just one source. I am re-writing the article using William Supernaugh's well referenced article on Yount's life as the primary source, and using a variety of other sources as well. Cullen328 ( talk) 20:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Cullen328 ( talk · contribs) asked me to take a look at this article in preparation for a GA nomination, so here are my observations:
Lead
Date and place of birth
Civil War military service
Hunter and trapper
Gamekeeper in Yellowstone National Park
First National Park Ranger
Homesteader and prospector
Malleus Fatuorum 15:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 02:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 02:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
On first pass, this appears to be an exceptionally well-constructed article. I made a few small tweaks; please feel free to revert any with which you disagree. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 23:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Prose is excellent; spotchecks show no copyright issues. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | I realize that this is contrary to the advice you got from another commenter, but the lead actually seems a touch long to me for the size of this article. It's within GA requirements, though, and I don't think it's necessary to change it. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. 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). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | Pass as GA |
In response to the request on my talk page, I'd like to offer the following comments on this article:
My thanks again to Nick-D for the detailed critique and Cassianto for words of encouragement. Thanks also to the editor who assisted so graciously and thoughtfully during the GA review, years ago, and who has offered other positive comments much more recently. I apologize for putting this project on the back burner for a while, but it would be nice to improve it to FA standards now. I have made some minor preliminary improvements. I have responded to most if not all of the comments in Nick-D's preliminary review. I will work more on that tomorrow. I would be very grateful for any constructive criticism, especially the easily actionable items, but I will certainly take major issues to heart. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Cullen328: - I'm not convinced that the link to John W. Phelps is correct. John W. Phelps didn't have anything to do with the Missouri regiment or Pea Ridge, while John S. Phelps seems to be who should be referred to here. Hog Farm Talk 18:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)