![]() | Press pass was one of the Social sciences and society 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
refs 17, 19 and 20 are all bad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.121.20 ( talk) 11:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Nice. I can't believe there wasn't an article about this before. Badagnani 03:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
This article passed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of May 8, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
— The Sunshine Man 11:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Lampman ( talk) 21:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
This article is utter nonsense and should be pulled. Of COURSE editors and photographers can have press passes!
I am an editor and also work as a photographer, and have a UK press pass, so know what I am talking about. Unlike the author of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.233.152 ( talk) 11:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Press pass. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
A number of IPs have been repeatedly inserting/reverting links to sellers of fake press passes, specifically:
Anon IPs:
- HidariMigi ( talk) 03:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 GA uses many questionable sources and has many unsourced bits, which fails criteria 2 of the GACR. Spinixster (chat!) 01:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Press pass was one of the Social sciences and society 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
refs 17, 19 and 20 are all bad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.121.20 ( talk) 11:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Nice. I can't believe there wasn't an article about this before. Badagnani 03:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
This article passed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of May 8, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
— The Sunshine Man 11:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Lampman ( talk) 21:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
This article is utter nonsense and should be pulled. Of COURSE editors and photographers can have press passes!
I am an editor and also work as a photographer, and have a UK press pass, so know what I am talking about. Unlike the author of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.233.152 ( talk) 11:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Press pass. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
A number of IPs have been repeatedly inserting/reverting links to sellers of fake press passes, specifically:
Anon IPs:
- HidariMigi ( talk) 03:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 GA uses many questionable sources and has many unsourced bits, which fails criteria 2 of the GACR. Spinixster (chat!) 01:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)