Talk:Marion L. Brittain

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Disavian in topic GA Reassessment
Good articleMarion L. Brittain has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 22, 2007Good article nomineeListed
May 11, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 7, 2007.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the house of University President Marion L. Brittain was listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places?
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 11, 2023.
Current status: Good article

Other images edit

From the archives: [1] and [2]. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

GA on hold edit

The only issue that needs to be addressed is that the lead is too short. T Rex | talk 12:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

  Done Feel free to make changes or further recommendations as needed. MaxVeers 14:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yay, I passed it because now with the lead it passes all the points on the good article criteria. T Rex | talk 14:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Did you have any other suggestions? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

GA Reassessment edit

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Marion L. Brittain/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: Pass edit

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several corrections throughout the article and added a new source, infobox, and persondata. I found one dead link that should either be repaired (I tried using the Internet Archive but was unsuccessful) or replaced with a new source. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 21:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply