Jump to content

Talk:Cardinal-nephew

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Savidan (talk | contribs) at 14:43, 27 July 2007 (Yay!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleCardinal-nephew is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 29, 2007Good article nomineeListed
July 16, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
July 26, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 24, 2025.
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject iconCatholicism FA‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconCardinal-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.
FAThis article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Catholicism task list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

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]

Yay!


This is the 1500th FA

More of a 9-way tie actually. [1] Savidan 14:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]