Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good Article Collaboration of the week/Pruned

< Wikipedia:Good Article Collaboration of the week

Articles are placed here if they have been present on the main page for a long period of time without any new votes.

Do not place votes here.

If you wish to vote for one of the below articles, copy it's nomination back to the main page, and add your vote. Don't forget to add:

Re-Nominated ''{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTDAY}}, {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}'' when you are putting an article back on the main page.

Korean War edit

Nominated May 29, 2006.

Support

  1. Vints 11:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. RJH (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Needs improvement. It's far from comprehensive. Vints 11:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason Failed - It is not a Good article.

Richard III (1955 film) edit

Nominated June 6, 2006.

Support

  1. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 23:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • An article I have been working on a lot, but it needs some polishing to be come FA. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 23:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is already up for an FA nom, where it seems to be succeeding. You might not need us after all heh. Homestarmy 22:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason removed - it is already a featured article.

Bronx High School of Science edit

Nominated November 7, 2006.

Support

  1. Qazws11 23:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Bxsstudent 00:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. RossPatterson 04:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tvoz 06:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The best high school article I have seen, but needs polishing.Qazws11 23:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A relatively well developed article illuminating a high school rich in history and unparalled in achievement. However needs ideas and contribution from a broader range of editors.Bxsstudent 00:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs some tightening up - the laundry lists need to be thinned down (especialy the clubs), it needs more citations to support the apparent facts, etc., but it's pretty good already. With the help this collaboration should provoke, it might become one of the better articles. RossPatterson 04:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • More references, more narrative needed in places - the lists not only need thinning down, they should be mostly replaced by narrative, perhaps highlighting a selected few sports, or clubs, for example, with some descriptive text and a link to the exhaustive offsite lists of sports, clubs, etc; history section is a good start, but could use more depth about present day activities, faculty, student accomplishments. A good article so far, looking for input of information that can then be edited for style, writing, etc. "Collaborations" section needs to be explained or removed. Tvoz 06:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question:

  • This article was listed as Good Article by User:Qazws11 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), but it is inproper way of reviewing (no review process), as has been discussed in WP:GA/R. User:Qazws11 further nominated the article for GA collaboration of the week, which is strange. Why would an already GA-passed article is nominated as GA COTW? I have relisted back the article at WP:GAC. Now, my question is: what editors would do? Nominate the article at WP:GAC or here as GA COTW? If you want to nominate here as GA COTW, then I will delist the article from WP:GAC. — Indon (reply) — 09:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I know, this collaboration is for articles which are already GA's, not for improving non-GA's to GAs :/. Homestarmy 14:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Homestarmy. I didn't know that. I thought this is only for non GA article. Hmm... so I should retract my question above. Now, the article is re-listed back in the candidate page. Should we postpone this article from GA COTW first? Again, sorry for my question above. — Indon (reply) — 14:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it would depend on whether or not it is a GA by the time it would ordinarily be the collaboration. Homestarmy 14:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason removed - Not a GA

Aloysius Schmitt edit

Nominated November 28, 2006.

Support

  1. Laleena 13:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • This article could become a Featured Article if it were only a little bit better. Laleena 13:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uhh, unless somebody has done some very sneaky massive vandalism, this article appears to have no references and isn't even a GA? Homestarmy 19:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason removed - Not a GA

American Civil War edit

Nominated December 4, 2006.

Support

  1. RJH (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. loulou 01:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • An important topic in U.S. history and in some respects a precursory to the mass wastage of World War I. This article is currently 107 Kb in length, so it may need some judicious prunning to get it into summary style; suitable for an FAC. It also needs more references, particularly in the combat section which seems relatively brief.) Thanks. — RJH (talk)

Reason Removed - Former GA

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_Article_Collaboration_of_the_week/Pruned&oldid=1138521929"