Talk:Cardinal-nephew: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:42, 29 June 2007

Cardinal-nephew has been listed as one of the 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: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Cardinal-nephew appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 June 2007. A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/June.

Wikipedia

Catholicism Unassessed

Cardinal-nephew is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism

???

This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Catholicism task list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : see Draft articles
Assess : see Category:Unassessed Catholicism articles; Category:Unknown-importance Catholicism articles
Cleanup : Blessed Virgin Mary (see the talk page)
Collaborate : Invitation template needed, see Category:WikiProject invitation templates
Copyedit : Cuthbert Tunstall
Expand : Angelus; Roman Catholicism in Kosovo; Bishop Adolph John Paschang; Cum sæpe accidere; Altar Society; American Board of Catholic Missions; Bernard Häring
NPOV : Americanism (heresy); Ensoulment
Photo : see Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Catholicism
Stubs : see Category:Stub-Class Catholicism articles; Category:Catholic Church stubs
Update : Peer review; John Aloysius Maguire
Verify : Archdiocese of Glasgow; Archbishop of Westminster; Bishop; Saint Mungo; Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral
Other : Watch recent changes for Catholicism articles

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to say that this article which was nominated for good article status has succeeded. This is how the article, as of June 29, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass - Exceptional prose, though a few minor spelling errors to be found.

2. Factually accurate?: Pass – copious citations available for reference

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass – extremely thorough.

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass – prose is objective.

5. Article stability? Neutral – There has been a flurry of edits of late, all by the nominator. While feeling it significant and would like to see further time pass to permit other knowledgable editors opportunity to review, I don’t feel it sufficient to impel an otherwise passable article.

6. Images?: Pass – all are in compliance at this time as far as I am able to ascertain.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status. — jackturner3 19:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{GA|oldid=1566-1692|topic=}}
-{{GAnominee}}
 {{dyktalk|24 June|2007}}
 {{WikiProject Catholicism}}
+==Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] nomination==
+I am glad to say that this article which was nominated for [[WP:GA|good article]] status has succeeded. This is how the article, as of June 29, 2007, compares against the  [[Wikipedia:What is a good article?|six good article criteria]]:
+:'''1. Well written?:''' Pass - Exceptional prose, though a few minor spelling errors to be found.
+:'''2. Factually accurate?:''' Pass – copious citations available for reference
+:'''3. Broad in coverage?:''' Pass – extremely thorough.
+:'''4. Neutral point of view?:''' Pass – prose is objective.
+:'''5. Article stability?''' Neutral – There has been a flurry of edits of late, all by the nominator.  While feeling it significant and would like to see further time pass to permit other knowledgable editors opportunity to review, I don’t feel it sufficient to impel an otherwise passable article.
+:'''6. Images?:''' Pass – all are in compliance at this time as far as I am able to ascertain.
+If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a [[WP:GA/R|GA review]]. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status.<!-- Template:PGAN -->
+— [[User:Jackturner3|jackturner3]] 19:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)