This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Samuel Merrill Woodbridge 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 |
Samuel Merrill Woodbridge is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 11, 2013. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs) 09:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
In general this article is well-written and seems to cover the main aspects of Rev. Woodbridge's life and career. A few points I noticed:
I usually defend FAs from people who question their legitimacy, but for once I have to join them for this one.
I don't really have a problem with the article's subject, but why is this considered an FA? I understand that the writing is sufficiently polished. I understand that it is well-sourced. Clearly the author has done his research. But what makes this an FA? What makes it 'Featured?' What makes it 'one of Wikipedia's best articles?' It doesn't say anything about why this man is notable. There are oodles of churches and seminaries in the Christian world, and they all have pastors or priests. He taught for a long time and produced several books. What did he write? How did he influence his field? Is or was he famous, if even within the narrow confines of New Brunswick? In short, what made the author choose him as a project? There's barely anything that could be remotely considered interesting in the article; the closest I can find is the quote from Corwin about his personality and teaching style.
I'm not saying it's a bad article; it might even qualify as a "good" one. But I think to be Featured an article should engage the reader at least a little. I'm willing to defend covered bridges in northern Pennsylvania, bogs in England, and suburbs in Australia; at least they have more pictures, or hints of interesting tidbits, or more detail. But if citations, prose and organization are all that count for a Featured Article, then we might need to split up that category, because there's no way an average reader would rank this in the same league as Middle Ages, or Campaign history of the Roman military, or Introduction to general relativity. Brutannica ( talk) 17:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading this article when it was showcased on your main page. Yes, it is short, but it is well-written and covers all of the man's life. I'm just a casual reader, and I've seen some featured articles on famous people that looked endless. Length isn't everything; some of your featured articles could benefit from a trim or two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrReaderEric ( talk • contribs) 01:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Featured article review#Proposal for procedural FARs on ColonelHenry FAs. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Samuel Merrill Woodbridge. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.nbts.edu/attachments/Fall09NBTSEmagazine.pdfWhen 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) 00:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Samuel Merrill Woodbridge 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 |
Samuel Merrill Woodbridge is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 11, 2013. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs) 09:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
In general this article is well-written and seems to cover the main aspects of Rev. Woodbridge's life and career. A few points I noticed:
I usually defend FAs from people who question their legitimacy, but for once I have to join them for this one.
I don't really have a problem with the article's subject, but why is this considered an FA? I understand that the writing is sufficiently polished. I understand that it is well-sourced. Clearly the author has done his research. But what makes this an FA? What makes it 'Featured?' What makes it 'one of Wikipedia's best articles?' It doesn't say anything about why this man is notable. There are oodles of churches and seminaries in the Christian world, and they all have pastors or priests. He taught for a long time and produced several books. What did he write? How did he influence his field? Is or was he famous, if even within the narrow confines of New Brunswick? In short, what made the author choose him as a project? There's barely anything that could be remotely considered interesting in the article; the closest I can find is the quote from Corwin about his personality and teaching style.
I'm not saying it's a bad article; it might even qualify as a "good" one. But I think to be Featured an article should engage the reader at least a little. I'm willing to defend covered bridges in northern Pennsylvania, bogs in England, and suburbs in Australia; at least they have more pictures, or hints of interesting tidbits, or more detail. But if citations, prose and organization are all that count for a Featured Article, then we might need to split up that category, because there's no way an average reader would rank this in the same league as Middle Ages, or Campaign history of the Roman military, or Introduction to general relativity. Brutannica ( talk) 17:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading this article when it was showcased on your main page. Yes, it is short, but it is well-written and covers all of the man's life. I'm just a casual reader, and I've seen some featured articles on famous people that looked endless. Length isn't everything; some of your featured articles could benefit from a trim or two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrReaderEric ( talk • contribs) 01:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Featured article review#Proposal for procedural FARs on ColonelHenry FAs. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Samuel Merrill Woodbridge. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.nbts.edu/attachments/Fall09NBTSEmagazine.pdfWhen 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) 00:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)