Talk:James Armstrong (Georgia politician)

(Redirected from Talk:James Armstrong (Georgia))
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Femke in topic GA reassessment
Former good articleJames Armstrong (Georgia politician) was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 25, 2018Good article nomineeListed
July 13, 2022Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Photograph? edit

This guy died in 1800. The first photograph in history would not arrive until 1826. I suppose one could add a photograph to this article, but a photograph of what, exactly -- a tombstone, perhaps? 75.71.67.2 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

James Armstrong of Pennsylvania? edit

I notice that our article on the United States presidential election, 1788–89, states the following with regard to James Armstrong:

The identity of this candidate comes from The Documentary History of the First Federal Elections (Gordon DenBoer (ed.), University of Wisconsin Press, 1984, p. 441). Several respected sources, including the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress and the Political Graveyard, instead show this individual to be James Armstrong of Pennsylvania. However, primary sources, such as the Senate Journal, list only Armstrong's name, not his state. Skeptics observe that Armstrong received his single vote from a Georgia elector. They find this improbable because Armstrong of Pennsylvania was not nationally famous—his public service to that date consisted of being a medical officer during the American Revolution and, at most, a single year as a Pennsylvania judge.

Whilst it does appear to be that the Presidential nominee was James Armstrong from Georgia, we ought to mention in his article that scholars have not always made that identification, otherwise we are potentially giving undue weight to that interpretation. —Noswall59 (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC).Reply

GA Review edit

This review is transcluded from Talk:James Armstrong (Georgia)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 22:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've copyedited a bit. I don't really think there's anything that I can say against approving, but given the length, I'm going to request a second opinion.Eddie891 Talk Work 19:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think the only criteria that I would question is broad but I see no indication that there's significant information missing. I think we've seen a recent trend that shorter articles can obtain GA status and so I see no barriers to passing this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

GA reassessment edit

James Armstrong (Georgia politician) edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: Delisted. Femke (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Last month, User:Lilredreb removed a large amount of information from this page, asserting that the article was conflating different people. This article needs someone familiar with the subject area to sort it out. It needs to be determined if the removal of information was the correct thing to do. If it was, then the references listed in the bibliography section need to be checked if they apply to this guy or the other guy. The infobox would need to be removed or replaced. I also have some concerns relating to whether this is sufficiently broad in coverage. Some newspaper references could be used. If that is not possible, then I would call into question whether this subject matter passes GNG. Steelkamp (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Speedy delist. A good article does not need to be long, but this is less informative than some stub articles i've seen. Also i think that he may not be notable based on the lack of info i've found online. The helper5667 (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Speedy delist I am unsure if this is an option, but agree per nom, as the article is extremely poor IMO. With barely more than 100 words, a one-sentence lead, and few refs, IMO this should at best be a start article; its notability is also probably questionable, namely this line: Much of his early life is unknown. VickKiang (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

  • @Iazyges: Do you agree with Lilredreb's claim that the article was previously conflating two different people? It's a bit of a different conversation for if that claim is contested vs. accepted. Agree with the others that if this article was in fact describing two people before, the remaining article should be delisted. SnowFire (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
    @SnowFire: I'll need to take a look at it; it is possible. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Speedy delist. I don't mean to rush Iazyges along, but the article currently marked as a GA is fundamentally different on a factual level from the article that was reviewed in the GAN. If it's going to take some time to investigate, that's fine, but the article can be renominated for a fresh set of eyes in a new GA nomination once the issues are resolved. SnowFire (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
    @SnowFire: Agree to this. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.