![]() | Merseyside Skeptics Society has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society 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: August 2, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Merseyside Skeptics Society appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 26 July 2013 (
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 has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
|
|
I am currently working on a rewrite of this article. My work in progress can be found at User:MrBill3/draft_article_MSS. MrBill3 ( talk) 01:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Dynamicimanyd ( talk · contribs) 21:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
This article is in my opinion a good article. It is well written with good spelling and grammar, consistent formatting and is cleanly organised. It is factual, well cited, has a neutral point of view and adequate citation in describing the society's activities (some of which involve areas that engender heated debate, where statements from the opposing viewpoint have been summarised and factual outcome has been mentioned (e.g. in section Sports wristband test, spokesman & director's comments/statements are reffered to with reference to Liverpool Echo news article) and has no inline tags for improvement and does not appear to warrant any such tags. The article uses specific cited quotations to describe relevant matters of opinion and intent that might otherwise appear to be original work or opinion from the editors of the article (e.g. History second paragraph (skeptic versus sceptic), Podcasts/Be Reasonable (hosts described their show as...)).
The article also provides a relevant home for suitably brief but referenced information about the conference QED: Question, Explore, Discover (sometimes referred to as QEDcon, and a search for that term does find a nearby section of this article). QEDcon may in future years establish suitable notability for a separate page, similar to The Amazing Meeting, but for now this seems to be sufficient coverage.
I have also tried various search terms, such as "QEDcon" and "Mersey sceptics" using various spellings, and Wikipedia search provides relevant results in those cases.
The Lead section meets all the criteria and includes ample cross-reference links to relevant Wikipedia articles, albeit no external citations at that point. It's clear, brief, neutral and provides a reasonable summary.
There appears to be no original research, maintaining neutrality and reliance on reliable sources with sufficient attribution of quotations.
The level of detail is sufficient but not excessive, with further information available from referenced sources.
The article maintains a neutral point of view and describes potentially controversial or contentious subject with attributed quotes without expressing an unattributed opinion.
There do not appear to be any edit wars.
The MSS logo has an appropriate logo fair use rationale. An appropriate number of photographs are included, all taken at relevant venues with free licenses and the appearance of being own work, as claimed in those licenses.
It is pretty clear that this is written in the style typical of a Wikipedia article, with virtually no likelihood of copyright violation. Quotations are short and attributed, so would not constitute infringement.
Verification of citations, as numbered on 2013-07-29 21:29 UT.
External links, just three, but the most relevant three.
In my opinion everything is of an approriate standard for Good Article status, subject to the minor corrections to the citations I mentioned above, which I will make immediately - making my first edit on this article. Dynamicimanyd ( talk) 21:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
This is mostly directed at MrBill3 and Anthony Appleyard regarding the history merge. It seems as though Bill reverted the page back to the first draft that was copied to the article to speed up the process of a history merge, however this means that we lost all subsequent edits of which there were quite a few. Just wondering if this could be sorted in such a way that we have the most recent additions to the article whilst maintaining an accurate history for both draft and article spaces? Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves seems to suggest this is possible. I'm a little confused so if I've misunderstood the situation let me know. Samwalton9 ( talk) 08:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Merseyside Skeptics Society. 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) 09:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | Merseyside Skeptics Society has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society 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: August 2, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Merseyside Skeptics Society appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 26 July 2013 (
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 has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
|
|
I am currently working on a rewrite of this article. My work in progress can be found at User:MrBill3/draft_article_MSS. MrBill3 ( talk) 01:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Dynamicimanyd ( talk · contribs) 21:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
This article is in my opinion a good article. It is well written with good spelling and grammar, consistent formatting and is cleanly organised. It is factual, well cited, has a neutral point of view and adequate citation in describing the society's activities (some of which involve areas that engender heated debate, where statements from the opposing viewpoint have been summarised and factual outcome has been mentioned (e.g. in section Sports wristband test, spokesman & director's comments/statements are reffered to with reference to Liverpool Echo news article) and has no inline tags for improvement and does not appear to warrant any such tags. The article uses specific cited quotations to describe relevant matters of opinion and intent that might otherwise appear to be original work or opinion from the editors of the article (e.g. History second paragraph (skeptic versus sceptic), Podcasts/Be Reasonable (hosts described their show as...)).
The article also provides a relevant home for suitably brief but referenced information about the conference QED: Question, Explore, Discover (sometimes referred to as QEDcon, and a search for that term does find a nearby section of this article). QEDcon may in future years establish suitable notability for a separate page, similar to The Amazing Meeting, but for now this seems to be sufficient coverage.
I have also tried various search terms, such as "QEDcon" and "Mersey sceptics" using various spellings, and Wikipedia search provides relevant results in those cases.
The Lead section meets all the criteria and includes ample cross-reference links to relevant Wikipedia articles, albeit no external citations at that point. It's clear, brief, neutral and provides a reasonable summary.
There appears to be no original research, maintaining neutrality and reliance on reliable sources with sufficient attribution of quotations.
The level of detail is sufficient but not excessive, with further information available from referenced sources.
The article maintains a neutral point of view and describes potentially controversial or contentious subject with attributed quotes without expressing an unattributed opinion.
There do not appear to be any edit wars.
The MSS logo has an appropriate logo fair use rationale. An appropriate number of photographs are included, all taken at relevant venues with free licenses and the appearance of being own work, as claimed in those licenses.
It is pretty clear that this is written in the style typical of a Wikipedia article, with virtually no likelihood of copyright violation. Quotations are short and attributed, so would not constitute infringement.
Verification of citations, as numbered on 2013-07-29 21:29 UT.
External links, just three, but the most relevant three.
In my opinion everything is of an approriate standard for Good Article status, subject to the minor corrections to the citations I mentioned above, which I will make immediately - making my first edit on this article. Dynamicimanyd ( talk) 21:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
This is mostly directed at MrBill3 and Anthony Appleyard regarding the history merge. It seems as though Bill reverted the page back to the first draft that was copied to the article to speed up the process of a history merge, however this means that we lost all subsequent edits of which there were quite a few. Just wondering if this could be sorted in such a way that we have the most recent additions to the article whilst maintaining an accurate history for both draft and article spaces? Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves seems to suggest this is possible. I'm a little confused so if I've misunderstood the situation let me know. Samwalton9 ( talk) 08:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Merseyside Skeptics Society. 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) 09:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)