![]() | William Goddard (publisher) 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. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Doug Coldwell: — Aye Doug, haven't seen you around DYK in a while. In regards to this edit, I was just curious how the two sources in question, that were previously in 'cite book' format, posed any chance of a Harv Error, while the other sources in the Further reading section remain in 'cite book or 'cite journal' format. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
[Note: this section was added to and then subsequently deleted from the weeks-since-completed first GA review page; it should have been on the article talk page to begin with, so I have resurrected it and placed it here after it was deleted by Gwillhickers.] BlueMoonset ( talk) 17:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
@ SchreiberBike and Doug Coldwell: -- (Doug Coldwell has also been called in as he has been active in creating and contributing to many such articles.) The main article link to Early American publishers and printers was at the top of this article but was moved to the See also section by user SchreiberBike, with the claim that the article in question is not the main article for William Goddard. My reasoning is that if we were going to write a book about Early American publishers and printers, William Goddard would be one chapter under that main title, as William Goddard was just one early American publisher and printer among many. The main article about Early American publishers and printers also offers background information and puts Goddard and other such printers in context with one another for the time period they lived in. I suppose I can live with the link in the See also section, but there it will often be overlooked, as a large percentage of readers only read the lede and maybe one or two particular sections of interest. With the link in question at the top as a main article, the linked article, which links to dozens of other printers and related subjects, will be read by far more readers than if it was simply listed at the bottom of the Goddard article. Imo, a main article link is appropriate and would also serve a number of useful purposes. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 20:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
"This template is used after the heading of the summary, to link to the subtopic article that has been summarized."and
"This template should also not be used in lead sections."
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Kaleeb18 ( talk · contribs) 20:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello there, I'll be reviewing this article. ―
Kaleeb18
TalkCaleb 20:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
|
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. |
|
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
|
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
|
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
|
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
|
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
|
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
This article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 09:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | William Goddard (publisher) 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. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Doug Coldwell: — Aye Doug, haven't seen you around DYK in a while. In regards to this edit, I was just curious how the two sources in question, that were previously in 'cite book' format, posed any chance of a Harv Error, while the other sources in the Further reading section remain in 'cite book or 'cite journal' format. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
[Note: this section was added to and then subsequently deleted from the weeks-since-completed first GA review page; it should have been on the article talk page to begin with, so I have resurrected it and placed it here after it was deleted by Gwillhickers.] BlueMoonset ( talk) 17:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
@ SchreiberBike and Doug Coldwell: -- (Doug Coldwell has also been called in as he has been active in creating and contributing to many such articles.) The main article link to Early American publishers and printers was at the top of this article but was moved to the See also section by user SchreiberBike, with the claim that the article in question is not the main article for William Goddard. My reasoning is that if we were going to write a book about Early American publishers and printers, William Goddard would be one chapter under that main title, as William Goddard was just one early American publisher and printer among many. The main article about Early American publishers and printers also offers background information and puts Goddard and other such printers in context with one another for the time period they lived in. I suppose I can live with the link in the See also section, but there it will often be overlooked, as a large percentage of readers only read the lede and maybe one or two particular sections of interest. With the link in question at the top as a main article, the linked article, which links to dozens of other printers and related subjects, will be read by far more readers than if it was simply listed at the bottom of the Goddard article. Imo, a main article link is appropriate and would also serve a number of useful purposes. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 20:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
"This template is used after the heading of the summary, to link to the subtopic article that has been summarized."and
"This template should also not be used in lead sections."
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Kaleeb18 ( talk · contribs) 20:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello there, I'll be reviewing this article. ―
Kaleeb18
TalkCaleb 20:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
|
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. |
|
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
|
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
|
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
|
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
|
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
|
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
This article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 09:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)