![]() | John Rice Irwin was a History 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
December 31, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that an experience at an
auction in the early 1960s led
John Rice Irwin to start the
Museum of Appalachia? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
An important topic that needs to be added to the article is Irwin's relationship with Alex Haley. -- Orlady ( talk) 22:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I have been vociferously and repeatedly challenged to explain why I don't consider this article to be C class, but instead rate it as a Start. First off, I continue to assert that that "C" rating was assigned by the contributor of the article -- even if the article was first created by someone else, these changes are most of the aticle content, and the person who made these changes should not be rating the article. Accordingly, I consider the C-class rating to be a self-rating.
As for the article, I consider this article to be one that "has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas." Quality of the prose is not very unencyclopedic, and there are some MoS and organizational issues. Furthermore, many readers will need more content (note, for example, my comment above about the lack of information on Alex Haley -- also, I think the list of written works is incomplete). -- Orlady ( talk) 19:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Orlady ( talk) 18:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Article has a long way to go for GA status. I will add more comments later (and I would welcome other contributors to the review). However, for starters I'd like to point out one example of what I consider to be serious problems with the article:
What I am saying is that the article is a long way from GA status. I suggest you withdraw the nomination. If you want to pursue GA status in the future, you need to do some more research on the subject, work on your reference citations, work on the article structure, and get some copy-editing advice and assistance. -- Orlady ( talk) 00:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Here's a more extensive (but still incomplete) discussion of my concerns, with reference to some of the Good Article criteria (the numbered items below are statements about the criteria; my comments are below each such statement):
What's going on with this review? It's been a month since the last comment. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Article did not reflect changes from last review, and does not meed the standards of a Good Article.
TLSuda (
talk)
01:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Reviewer: TLSuda ( talk · contribs) 19:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm appalled when I look at this article. You attempted to achieve Good Article status in March 2011 GA Review but never responded to the review. Looking at the article now, and back at that review, the same issues exist. In addition to that 5 of the internet sources are dead links which cannot be verified and at least 2 sources do not meet WP:RS. There are many typos and grammatical errors that need to be resolved. I've done my read through and I have notes, but as it stands right now, this review should be quickfailed. However, if you will address all of the issues of your last attempt at this review, including notes and responses listed here, I will continue this review. I'm very disappointed that you've brought the same lackluster, poor quality article back for review without addressing those issues. I expect to see these issues resolved in 7 days, or this review will be failed, again. TLSuda ( talk) 13:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on John Rice Irwin. 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) 19:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on John Rice Irwin. 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) 18:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | John Rice Irwin was a History 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
December 31, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that an experience at an
auction in the early 1960s led
John Rice Irwin to start the
Museum of Appalachia? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
An important topic that needs to be added to the article is Irwin's relationship with Alex Haley. -- Orlady ( talk) 22:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I have been vociferously and repeatedly challenged to explain why I don't consider this article to be C class, but instead rate it as a Start. First off, I continue to assert that that "C" rating was assigned by the contributor of the article -- even if the article was first created by someone else, these changes are most of the aticle content, and the person who made these changes should not be rating the article. Accordingly, I consider the C-class rating to be a self-rating.
As for the article, I consider this article to be one that "has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas." Quality of the prose is not very unencyclopedic, and there are some MoS and organizational issues. Furthermore, many readers will need more content (note, for example, my comment above about the lack of information on Alex Haley -- also, I think the list of written works is incomplete). -- Orlady ( talk) 19:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Orlady ( talk) 18:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Article has a long way to go for GA status. I will add more comments later (and I would welcome other contributors to the review). However, for starters I'd like to point out one example of what I consider to be serious problems with the article:
What I am saying is that the article is a long way from GA status. I suggest you withdraw the nomination. If you want to pursue GA status in the future, you need to do some more research on the subject, work on your reference citations, work on the article structure, and get some copy-editing advice and assistance. -- Orlady ( talk) 00:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Here's a more extensive (but still incomplete) discussion of my concerns, with reference to some of the Good Article criteria (the numbered items below are statements about the criteria; my comments are below each such statement):
What's going on with this review? It's been a month since the last comment. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Article did not reflect changes from last review, and does not meed the standards of a Good Article.
TLSuda (
talk)
01:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Reviewer: TLSuda ( talk · contribs) 19:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm appalled when I look at this article. You attempted to achieve Good Article status in March 2011 GA Review but never responded to the review. Looking at the article now, and back at that review, the same issues exist. In addition to that 5 of the internet sources are dead links which cannot be verified and at least 2 sources do not meet WP:RS. There are many typos and grammatical errors that need to be resolved. I've done my read through and I have notes, but as it stands right now, this review should be quickfailed. However, if you will address all of the issues of your last attempt at this review, including notes and responses listed here, I will continue this review. I'm very disappointed that you've brought the same lackluster, poor quality article back for review without addressing those issues. I expect to see these issues resolved in 7 days, or this review will be failed, again. TLSuda ( talk) 13:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on John Rice Irwin. 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) 19:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on John Rice Irwin. 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) 18:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)