Talk:Lev Chernyi/GA1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→GA Review: birth date and the lack of references |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
* Add page numbers for the book references. |
* Add page numbers for the book references. |
||
< |
<span style="font-family:Verdana;">[[User:Gary King|<span style="color:#02e;">Gary</span> <b style="color:#02b;">King</b>]] ([[User talk:Gary King|<span style="color:#02e;">talk</span>]])</span> 01:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment''' Greetings Gary, and thanks for undertaking to review the article.[[WP:SEEALSO]] explicitly contradicts your first point: "A less common practice is to name the section "Related topics". " I have provided page numbers for the books cited. Is the article acceptable now? Regards, |
*'''Comment''' Greetings Gary, and thanks for undertaking to review the article.[[WP:SEEALSO]] explicitly contradicts your first point: "A less common practice is to name the section "Related topics". " I have provided page numbers for the books cited. Is the article acceptable now? Regards, [[User talk:Skomorokh|<span style="font-family:Garamond; color:black;">Skomorokh</span>]] 02:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
No birth date? At least mention that it is disputed or unknown. Also, I've never seen a "Related topics" section in the past 3 years of editing, so it was based on assumption. < |
No birth date? At least mention that it is disputed or unknown. Also, I've never seen a "Related topics" section in the past 3 years of editing, so it was based on assumption. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">[[User:Gary King|<span style="color:#02e;">Gary</span> <b style="color:#02b;">King</b>]] ([[User talk:Gary King|<span style="color:#02e;">talk</span>]])</span> 02:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
:I haven't found a reliable source that said it is disputed or unknown...would it not be original research to say so? |
:I haven't found a reliable source that said it is disputed or unknown...would it not be original research to say so? [[User talk:Skomorokh|<span style="font-family:Garamond; color:black;">Skomorokh</span>]] 02:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
:: Alright I have added the article to the appropriate category. This article now meets the Good article criteria and has therefore been passed. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">[[User:Gary King|<span style="color:#02e;">Gary</span> <b style="color:#02b;">King</b>]] ([[User talk:Gary King|<span style="color:#02e;">talk</span>]])</span> 02:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Fantastic, thank you for your attention and diligence Gary. Sincerely, [[User talk:Skomorokh|<span style="font-family:Garamond; color:black;">Skomorokh</span>]] 02:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 10:12, 18 April 2022
GA Review
[edit]- "Related topics" should be "See also" per WP:SEEALSO
- Add page numbers for the book references.
Gary King (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Greetings Gary, and thanks for undertaking to review the article.WP:SEEALSO explicitly contradicts your first point: "A less common practice is to name the section "Related topics". " I have provided page numbers for the books cited. Is the article acceptable now? Regards, Skomorokh 02:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
No birth date? At least mention that it is disputed or unknown. Also, I've never seen a "Related topics" section in the past 3 years of editing, so it was based on assumption. Gary King (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't found a reliable source that said it is disputed or unknown...would it not be original research to say so? Skomorokh 02:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Alright I have added the article to the appropriate category. This article now meets the Good article criteria and has therefore been passed. Gary King (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Fantastic, thank you for your attention and diligence Gary. Sincerely, Skomorokh 02:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)