This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Millbourne, Pennsylvania article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Millbourne, Pennsylvania was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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: Former good article nominee |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Seriously sounds like it was written by a gentrification cheerleader. 24rhhtr7 ( talk) 16:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Millbourne, Pennsylvania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Millbourne, Pennsylvania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Millbourne, Pennsylvania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: SounderBruce ( talk · contribs) 20:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Will review this, but there seems to be major sections without sources, as well as many essential sections (as laid out in
WP:USCITIES) completely missing.
Sounder
Bruce 20:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 17, 2022, compares against the six good article criteria:
I think it would be best if the article was overhauled and expanded before another review is requested. Please look at existing neighborhood and city GAs before proceeding.
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.— Sounder Bruce 07:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: GhostRiver ( talk · contribs) 18:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this article at GAN! Unfortunately, I am going to have to fail it without giving a full review, due to the third immediate failure criteria stated at
WP:GACR, which says, It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid.
In February 2022, a cleanup banner was placed on the article with two points. While confirming that the first point (This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards) is still valid would require a much closer read-through, the lack of sourcing in this article is cause for an immediate failure with or without a cleanup banner. The banner simply alerted me to the verification issues within.
In the interest of helping you bring this article to GA status at some point in the future, allow me to point out several examples of what I mean:
Additionally, even the references that are included are not fully formatted. The GA criteria I linked earlier state that Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source.
This means, in practice, the inclusion of writers, publishes, and most importantly for online references, access dates. For written works like History of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, that means page numbers.
I hope that my advice makes sense, and I suggest that you look at some town articles that have been promoted to Good Article to get a sense of what we are looking for. — Ghost River 18:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Good articles are only measured against the good article criteriaPlease ping with reply. Cheers · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source. In addition to that, WP:GACR also states that reviewers should ensure
those [sources] you can access support the content of the article. It is impossible for a reviewer to verify whether information is found somewhere in, say, a 500-page book if there are no indicators as to where in the book such information may be found. — Ghost River 13:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Steelkamp ( talk · contribs) 13:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Review coming soon. Steelkamp ( talk) 13:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to quickfail this review. There are several problems:
Here are some things you should do before renominating this article again.
I suggest you don't nominate this article again until at least the above things are fixed. Steelkamp ( talk) 10:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I have conducted a fresh assessment and determined that this article deserves a C-class rating. It has shown significant improvement since its initial Start classification. Please take a moment to review. PersonKnows ( talk) 07:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)