![]() | Widgiemoolthalite has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences 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: February 2, 2017. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Widgiemoolthalite appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 26 May 2016 (
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: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Vanadinite was copied or moved into Widgiemoolthalite with this edit on 16:43, May 15, 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This article was
submitted to WikiJournal of Science for external
peer review in 25 April 2019 (
reviewer reports). It was published as
Collin Knopp-Schwyn; et al. (25 August 2019).
"Widgiemoolthalite" (PDF). WikiJournal of Science. 2 (1): 7.
doi:
10.15347/WJS/2019.007.
ISSN
2470-6345.
Wikidata
Q81440318.{{
cite journal}} : CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
![]() |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tisquesusa ( talk · contribs) 21:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 4, 2017, compares against the six good article criteria:
As mentioned; this article may be not notable enough to serve as a GA, although most of the available information seems present (see comments above for more additions), the criteria for "Good Article" may be stretched too much if articles of this size are part of the GAs. Nothing against the article itself, it's the topic and the single occurrence that defines the "not suitable for GA" status, which is more nature's "fault" than that of the author.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Tisquesusa ( talk) 21:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
What's going on with this? Kees08 ( talk) 05:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC) @ Tisqususa and Bobamnertiopsis:
It isn't easy to think of any good reason why an article should be illustrated with two images with identical captions and very similar appearances. Since the second one was less sharp (out of focus or at poor resolution, or both) than the first, I've removed it. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 08:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Widgiemoolthalite has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences 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: February 2, 2017. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Widgiemoolthalite appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 26 May 2016 (
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: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Vanadinite was copied or moved into Widgiemoolthalite with this edit on 16:43, May 15, 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This article was
submitted to WikiJournal of Science for external
peer review in 25 April 2019 (
reviewer reports). It was published as
Collin Knopp-Schwyn; et al. (25 August 2019).
"Widgiemoolthalite" (PDF). WikiJournal of Science. 2 (1): 7.
doi:
10.15347/WJS/2019.007.
ISSN
2470-6345.
Wikidata
Q81440318.{{
cite journal}} : CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
![]() |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tisquesusa ( talk · contribs) 21:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 4, 2017, compares against the six good article criteria:
As mentioned; this article may be not notable enough to serve as a GA, although most of the available information seems present (see comments above for more additions), the criteria for "Good Article" may be stretched too much if articles of this size are part of the GAs. Nothing against the article itself, it's the topic and the single occurrence that defines the "not suitable for GA" status, which is more nature's "fault" than that of the author.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Tisquesusa ( talk) 21:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
What's going on with this? Kees08 ( talk) 05:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC) @ Tisqususa and Bobamnertiopsis:
It isn't easy to think of any good reason why an article should be illustrated with two images with identical captions and very similar appearances. Since the second one was less sharp (out of focus or at poor resolution, or both) than the first, I've removed it. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 08:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)