Michael of Zahumlje was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Serbian Orthodox Christianity in 912.!!?? The split between Catholic and Orthodox church happened in 1054, and Serbian Orthodox Church was established in 1219. Furthermore, Višević participated at Synod in Split in 925 which was summoned by Pope from Rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ro0103 ( talk • contribs) 20:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Mihailo Višević →
Michael of Zahumlje — Mihailo Višević has 1.490 google hints (mostly mirrors Wikipedia content) while Michael of Zahumlje has 1.680 google hints. More important
Mihailo Višević has 3 google book hints (all non-English), while
Michael of Zahumlje has 8 google book hints (all English).
Kebeta (
talk)
10:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Wustefuchs ( talk) 05:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
This article is sourced very good, since ther are no many sources for this person. Neutral point of view is very important to the good article status, and this arcile fits to this demand. Ther is also only one red link in the article, wich is good. The fact is that it is very hard to find images (none of them exists) for this person, so we have decent nomber of files in the article. Ther is no a single edit made since 6 January 2011, and ther was no edit wars. This article can pass as good article.-- Wustenfuchs ( talk) 19:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Michael of Zahumlje. 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) 07:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
This page was nominated for a GA by User:Wüstenfuchs here, then received exactly one review from User:Wustefuchs (who later was tagged as sockpuppet by the nominator) here, and then was tagged as a GA by them even though the review was never closed properly and no one other than a sockpuppet of the nominator reviewed it.
Recently, a set of unregistered editors have been removing the GA tag on the grounds that the nomination was started by an editor now blocked for socking. While this alone is not a reason to remove it as the block took place 3 years after the nomination, so they were not evading any block at the time, and the IP address is evading a block according to Special:PermanentLink/1053892270#Michael_of_Zahumlje, it looks like this page is not a GA as it never went through a real review and only had activity from a sockpuppet.
Anyone else agrees? If nobody objects, I will remove GA in 7 days or so. Naleksuh ( talk) 18:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Per comment at Talk:Michael of Zahumlje#Is this actually a GA? this could be sketchy. Persistent anonymous edit-warring also seems to be involved, so this topic needs help. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 15:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
This the diff between the version from early 2011 when it was edited by User:Kebeta and today. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 15:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
In view of above non-compliance with the verifiability criteria and apparent lack of volunteers who might fix this article, I think it would be appropriate to downgrade its quality rating to C or start-class.--
Tomobe03 (
talk)
13:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Struck C since at least criteria 2 (verifiability), likely 4 (neutrality), and 1 (prose) are not quite there.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 22:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
but the code for it, does not show up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.64.238.114 ( talk) 14:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Michael of Zahumlje was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Serbian Orthodox Christianity in 912.!!?? The split between Catholic and Orthodox church happened in 1054, and Serbian Orthodox Church was established in 1219. Furthermore, Višević participated at Synod in Split in 925 which was summoned by Pope from Rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ro0103 ( talk • contribs) 20:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Mihailo Višević →
Michael of Zahumlje — Mihailo Višević has 1.490 google hints (mostly mirrors Wikipedia content) while Michael of Zahumlje has 1.680 google hints. More important
Mihailo Višević has 3 google book hints (all non-English), while
Michael of Zahumlje has 8 google book hints (all English).
Kebeta (
talk)
10:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Wustefuchs ( talk) 05:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
This article is sourced very good, since ther are no many sources for this person. Neutral point of view is very important to the good article status, and this arcile fits to this demand. Ther is also only one red link in the article, wich is good. The fact is that it is very hard to find images (none of them exists) for this person, so we have decent nomber of files in the article. Ther is no a single edit made since 6 January 2011, and ther was no edit wars. This article can pass as good article.-- Wustenfuchs ( talk) 19:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Michael of Zahumlje. 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) 07:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
This page was nominated for a GA by User:Wüstenfuchs here, then received exactly one review from User:Wustefuchs (who later was tagged as sockpuppet by the nominator) here, and then was tagged as a GA by them even though the review was never closed properly and no one other than a sockpuppet of the nominator reviewed it.
Recently, a set of unregistered editors have been removing the GA tag on the grounds that the nomination was started by an editor now blocked for socking. While this alone is not a reason to remove it as the block took place 3 years after the nomination, so they were not evading any block at the time, and the IP address is evading a block according to Special:PermanentLink/1053892270#Michael_of_Zahumlje, it looks like this page is not a GA as it never went through a real review and only had activity from a sockpuppet.
Anyone else agrees? If nobody objects, I will remove GA in 7 days or so. Naleksuh ( talk) 18:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Per comment at Talk:Michael of Zahumlje#Is this actually a GA? this could be sketchy. Persistent anonymous edit-warring also seems to be involved, so this topic needs help. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 15:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
This the diff between the version from early 2011 when it was edited by User:Kebeta and today. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 15:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
In view of above non-compliance with the verifiability criteria and apparent lack of volunteers who might fix this article, I think it would be appropriate to downgrade its quality rating to C or start-class.--
Tomobe03 (
talk)
13:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Struck C since at least criteria 2 (verifiability), likely 4 (neutrality), and 1 (prose) are not quite there.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 22:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
but the code for it, does not show up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.64.238.114 ( talk) 14:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)