Wikipedia

Talk:Not My Presidents Day/Archive 2

< Talk:Not My Presidents Day
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Another Believer in topic GA Review
Archive 1 Archive 2

"We the People" rally in Portland, Oregon

Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
  Resolved

Commons has a gallery called We the People rally in Portland, Oregon (20 February 2017). If this is related to Not My Presidents Day, we should categorize appropriately and consider adding an image from the gallery to this article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: In your research about Portland, did you read about a "We the People" rally? Should this Common category be included under the Not My Presidents Day category and/or do we need to mention 'We the People' anywhere? If this is related, we can also add an image to the article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I haven't run into a We the People rally with Portland. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl: Ah, see this source and this source. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
The "We the People" rally still needs to be added to the article's prose, but I went ahead and moved the Commons category for "We the People" under the "Not My Presidents Day" umbrella. I also added an image to the article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I see. The We the People rally was the one with the permit. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl: Do you mind updating the article accordingly, and do you support the Commons categorization I described? Just making sure this works. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@Another Believer:. I've added the We the People to the Portland section. I'm not a big commons user (except to upload photos), so I trust your judgment with commons cats. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl: Great, thank you. I am marking this section as resolved. Will also mark Portland as done below. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge

Latest comment: 7 years ago20 comments3 people in discussion

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.

@CFCF: I totally support this edit. I'm not sure everyone will agree, so I'm creating this section in case editors want to discuss the merge again. I was surprised to see a merge vote emerge from the AfD discussion. The article was nominated for deletion almost immediately after being created, which I think resulted in many people assessing the article prematurely, without conducting independent research. I think this event is clearly notable, and merging this much content into the Trump protests article is inappropriate. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I added a summary of this article to the Protests against Donald Trump article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

This article has been saved! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Why is the article still existing? Wasn't the result of the previous AFD - merge into the Protests against Donald Trump article? GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

... because it should exist. I commented further in the "AFD result: Merge" section below. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
That was not the results of the AFD. @Sandstein: closed that AFD as merge. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Right, well I doubt this is the only Wikipedia article that was expanded following a merge or even delete vote. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

AFD result: Merge

The results of the AFD was to merge this article into Protests against Donald Trump. Why are some of you 'now' going against this? GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@GoodDay: ... because we disagree with the result of the discussion and have taken time to expand the article. We have communicated our progress and invited all to help establish notability and expand the article to its fullest potential. See this discussion, too. User:CFCF removed the merge banner and User:JFG, who had previously voted to delete/merge the article, was fine with the banner removal from the talk page. We're now working to make sure there are no content gaps (see cities list above) and will nominate this article for Good status soon. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
You should be (at the least) having another AFD, instead of over-turning the results of the first AFD. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'm certainly not going to initiate the discussion since I strongly believe the article should exist. IMO, the first nomination was premature, initiated minutes after the article was created. As a result, folks saw an incomplete article and may have cast merge/delete votes without doing their own research. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Do you still think this article should be merged/deleted? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Should be merged. I participated in the aforementioned AFD. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Alright, well, you do you and I'm going to keep pursuing Good article status here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't you follow through with the consensus decision if you're not going to start a new discussion? TheDracologist (talk) 05:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I didn't remove the merge banner from the top of the article, and I'm not going to move forward with an action I oppose, so if someone else wants to take action, that's fine. In my opinion, this article clearly doesn't need to be merged at this point, so I don't see the need to go through another round of discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not saying that you removed it. However, the fact that it has grown beyond the need for a merger is your opinion, not the consensus. If you want to go against the results of the discussion, you must establish a new consensus. Since you are unwilling to list it yourself, I'll see if I can get a discussion going. TheDracologist (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
See Talk:Not_My_Presidents_Day#Request_for_Comment. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 24. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
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.

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 24 closed with no consensus. There have been several discussions on different pages, so I am archiving this discussion in an attempt to tie up loose ends. Please start a new discussion section if necessary, thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Good article?

Latest comment: 7 years ago84 comments4 people in discussion

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.

This article has been expanded since the merge vote. With some final research and reference formatting, I think this article might meet Good article criteria. @Megalibrarygirl: Do you have any interest in helping me finish off this article and co-nominate for Good article status? If not, that's fine. If so, any thoughts? I'm considering creating a list of participating cities, which we can divide and do some 'googling' to make sure there aren't any final details to add. We might also comb through the article to make sure all reference formatting is appropriate and consistent.

Are there any other editors who would like to assist with this effort? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll help, Another Believer. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl: Fantastic, thank you! Below I've added a list of participating cities (there may be a couple missing cities, so keep an eye out) in alphabetical order:
List of participating cities
  • Atlanta   Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Ann Arbor, Michigan (not listed in article yet)   Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Augusta, Maine   Done
  • Austin, Texas   Done
  • Baltimore   Done
  • Chicago   Done Augusta, Austin, Baltimore and Chicago are covered. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Columbia, South Carolina More research needed here? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    •   Done I'm not seeing anything else about Columbia, so marking this as done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Concord, NH (not listed in article yet)   Done
    • Note: This source and Daily Mail list the city, but I am unable to find local coverage of an event in Concord. If someone else wants to double check, that'd be great, then we can check off Concord from the list with no changes to the article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Dallas   Done
    • Note: If Dallas details are added, we should create a subsection for Texas and include Austin-related content. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Note: I am having difficulty finding any details about Dallas. There are a couple sources mentioning Dallas in passing (example, example), but I can't find any local coverage. If someone wants to double check, that would be great, then we can check this off as done but with no updates to the article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Denver   Done Covered. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Eugene, Oregon   Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Gainesville, Florida   Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Grand Rapids, Michigan   Done
  • Great Barrington, Massachusetts   Done
  • Greensboro, North Carolina (not listed in article yet)   Done
    • Note: This source and Daily Mail list the city, but I am unable to find local coverage of an event in Greensboro. If someone else wants to double check, that'd be great, then we can check off Greensboro from the list with no changes to the article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Hackensack, New Jersey   Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Honolulu I found a mention here. There is something on Newspapers.com, but it's behind a paywall. >.< Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Megalibrarygirl: The article you mentioned is about anti-Trump protests in general, and not the NMPD protest, specifically. I can't find any other info re: Honolulu, so I am going to make this city as done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Indianapolis, IN (not listed in article yet)   Done
    • Note: This source and Daily Mail list the city, but I am unable to find local coverage of an event in Indianapolis. If someone else wants to double check, that'd be great, then we can check off Indianapolis from the list with no changes to the article. @Missvain: Not that you follow every event in Indianapolis, but do you happen to recall hearing about any "Not My Presidents Day"-related activities? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
      • @User:Another Believer I have no clue if Indianapolis had one. I don't even know if Sonoma, where I live now, had one! Tells you how involved I was in this day. ;-) Missvain (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Confirmed by Megalibrarygirl below. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Kansas City, Missouri   Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Knoxville, Tennessee   Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Las Vegas (not listed in article yet)   Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Note: A news channel initially said the anti-Trump rally in Las Vegas was related to NMPD, then corrected to say the event was unaffiliated. I made a note of this in the article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • London? (see above "Cities" section)   Done See "International?" section below for discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Los Angeles   Done Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Marquette, Michigan   Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Miami   Done Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Milwaukee   Done Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Nashville   Done
    • Note: This source and Daily Mail list the city, but I am unable to find local coverage of an event in Nashville. If someone else wants to double check, that'd be great, then we can check off Nashville from the list with no changes to the article.
  • New Paltz (village), New York   Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • New York City   Done I feel like we've gotten all of the sources. For some reason, this was not covered in the New York Times! Most of the coverage is repetitive. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Newark, New Jersey   Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Ocala, Florida   Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Ocean City, New Jersey   Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Palm Desert, California   Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pasadena, California (not listed in article yet)   Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Philadelphia   Done Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Portland, Oregon   Done (Thanks to Megalibrarygirl.) ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Rapid City, South Dakota   Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Saint Paul, Minnesota   Done I also found info about Minneapolis and a joint "Twin city" event. However, I think this is done, though it's still small. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Salt Lake City   Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • San Antonio   Done There was flooding in SA at the time. No protest. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • San Diego   Done Covered. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • San Francisco (not in article yet, but mentioned by Funcrunch below)   Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • San Jose (per SF)   Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • San Mateo (per SF)   Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Santa Barbara, CA (not listed in article yet)   Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Seattle (per this source, which is currently also used in the Atlanta section)   Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Venice, Florida   Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Washington, D.C.   Done I feel like this one is done. I did find info on crowd size finally and added it. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • West Palm Beach, Florida   Done I found one additional source. I think this is done. ;) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • White Plains, New York   Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Discussion about the above list of specific cities

We need to check for content gaps. Can you help by researching a specific city to make sure we've included appropriate details for each demonstration? I've been doing this by googling "Not My Presidents Day"+"Baltimore", or whichever city of interest. While updating the article about a specific city, can you also check to make sure the references are formatted properly? When you're done with a city, just check off the above list. This way we can easily divide and conquer, and ensure the article is more complete before nominating for Good article status. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: Pinging just in case you're interested in helping with this effort. No prob if not! ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if I have the energy to participate in this alongside the other battles issues I'm dealing with right now. If it helps, there were some protesters here in the SF Bay Area too (sources: 1, 2). I'm surprised there weren't more, as we've often had large turnouts at these kinds of protests even in the rain, but it might just be burnout... (at least that's why I wasn't there taking photos myself :-P ) Funcrunch (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@Funcrunch: No worries whatsoever, 'twas just an invitation. Thanks for providing sources. I've added San Francisco to the list of participating cities requiring research above. And I totally understand re: exhaustion. There's too much to keep up with both on-wiki and in real life. Thanks again! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I added San Jose and San Mateo to your list as they were also mentioned in the sources I cited. Thanks for understanding :-) Funcrunch (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@Funcrunch: Fantastic, thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  Done These sources have been added to the article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I've updated the list to include all of the cities mentioned here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: No rush whatsoever, but if/when you have a moment, are you able to confirm that you cannot find details for the following cities: Concord, Dallas, Greensboro, Indianapolis, and Nashville? If not, I will go ahead and mark these cities as 'done' (as far as research goes) and move on to research some of the other cities in this list. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I can look this coming hour. Sorry for the slowness; on weekends I am a sporadic contributor depending on what life throws at me. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not seeing news coverage of Dallas, Concord, Greensboro, Indianapolis and Nashville either on Google News nor in HighBeam. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl: Great, thanks for confirming. I will mark them as done above. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: Regarding this edit, did you search these cities to make sure there were not other details to add to the article? You mentioned they are 'covered' in the article, but my goal here is to make sure each city is thoroughly researched. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

My bad, Another Believer. Let me go ahead and expand on anything I've struck through. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl: No worries, I just want to make sure we aren't missing any important details, such as number of participants, names of organizers, specific protest locations, etc. I went ahead and searched Augusta, Austin, and Baltimore, so I've checked those off as done above. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I assume there is more to add for Portland, where there were multiple demonstrations, and arrests. There is another section on this talk page re: the "We the People" rally and category at Commons -- more research needed here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
You're right. I'll start researching Portland. Maybe the charges can be found, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, I just unchecked Portland above to avoid confusion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Marked as done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Update: I collapsed the list of cities for which we've completed research. Just 10 cities remain, which are marked as "not done" above. I'm just trying to make this page easier to read. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Los Angeles may be done. Even though it was large, it didn't seem to receive a lot of coverage. The LA Times mentions it only once. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Either of us can mark LA as done once we've had a chance to double check the Googles. :p ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)   Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: I've requested a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors, which I think is always a good idea before considering Good article status. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Update, especially for @Megalibrarygirl: I've collapsed the above discussion to make this page easier to navigate. We have only 4 cities still needing thorough research: New York City, Saint Paul, Washington, D.C., and West Palm Beach. There is still an ongoing discussion re: this article's merge and expansion. I've worked to create a few maps, which are now displayed in the article, and I'm curious for additional feedback about whether or not they should be included. We're getting very close to being able to nominate this article for Good status! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

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.

I am archiving this section, which is very long and detailed, and ask editors to create a new section if further discussion is needed re: specific cities. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Good article nomination

I have co-nominated this article for Good status, with User:Megalibrarygirl. Note to reviewer and other editors: I went with the "Culture, sociology and psychology" subcategory, but debated listing the article under the "Politics and government" category. Please speak up if you think the latter category is more appropriate. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion
DISCUSSION MOVED
Discussion moved to Deletion review

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.

Not My Presidents Day was nominated for deletion and the result was merge to Protests against Donald Trump, but some editors are expanding the article, with the goal of a good article nomination. They argue that the article has grown since then and oppose the merger. However, they refuse to open up another discussion about the merger, so I'm opening one for them. Should we follow through with the results of the AfD or overturn them? (Note for posterity: The words "overturn them" used to say "keep the article". I just reworded for clarity.) TheDracologist (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Strong keep, as article creator, co-expander, and (near) future Good article co-nominator. This subject was notable from the start, and unfortunately the community voted incorrectly in the AfD discussion. The article was nominated immediately after being created, so I think people started casting votes to merge the incomplete article without really taking time to research the subject's notability. Since the merge vote, the article has been expanded. I did not see a reason to waste editors' time with another round of discussion, but here we are, and now I hope editors will see that this event is notable and the article should be kept per WP:GNG. I plan on co-nominating this article for Good status as soon as User:Megalibrarygirl and I finish researching the 6 3 remaining cities listed above, and determine if we should mention the 2 reported international activities described here. Thanks for starting this discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm still not sure why you wouldn't do this yourself. If there's no consensus to overturn the AfD, the article just gets merged anyway, so why the reluctance to open a discussion to overturn the AfD? TheDracologist (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I assumed the article would not be merged following this edit made by User:CFCF and User:JFG's permission for me to remove the template from the merge banner here. In other words, multiple editors agreed to remove merge templates, and with the article majorly expanded, I didn't see the need to start another discussion. I apologize if this assumption was incorrect, but I thanked you for starting this discussion and I'm confident the result will be to keep the article this time. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I suppose this might be another case of me not knowing things. I'm new here, so that happens a lot. TheDracologist (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I suspect that Sandstein and the editors who !voted to delete or merge in the AfD would be perturbed to see that the consensus reached there is being ignored and then challenged on the article talk page. I believe normally a closed AfD can only be challenged at WP:DRV. Not that anyone necessarily did anything wrong here, but this RfC should probably be withdrawn and a discussion should be started there. (I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll put the discussion there, then. TheDracologist (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I can't figure out how to do most of the things required to list it. Can someone please list it? TheDracologist (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@DrFleischman: Pinging in case you wish to take any further action here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I think I figured it out. Can someone close this and direct people to the review discussion? TheDracologist (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I think an admin needs to close this discussion. If not closed soon, maybe consider asking for assistance here? ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@TheDracologist: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs may be of some help. ---Another Believer (Talk) 06:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
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.

AfD review

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

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.

Not_My_Presidents_Day

Not_My_Presidents_Day (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Listing for page creator TheDracologist

(talk) 00:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC) The creator of the article says that decision to merge was premature and the article has grown since then, but refuses to open a discussion, so I'm opening the deletion review on their behalf. Personally, I Endorse the original consensus to merge. TheDracologist (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

P.S. Am I doing this right? I'm a little new here. TheDracologist (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Honestly?, I have no idea. I am not familiar with this process. I'm tired of trying to explain my actions on so many different pages, but I will just reiterate here that I strongly disagree with the merge vote and strongly vote to keep this article, which is very close to being nominated for Good article status. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@TheDracologist: Do you care to explain why you'd like to merge a near-complete article with 100+ reliable sources into an (arguably already too) long article, Protests against Donald Trump? User:Megalibrarygirl and I will be nominating this article for Good status very soon, so we're in this odd state of limbo re: merge vs. Good article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
This talk page section was a mistake. The actual discussion is at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_March_24#Not_My_Presidents_Day. TheDracologist (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, I will move my comments there. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 24. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

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.

I have archived this page to keep discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Archiving weblinks

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Another Believer, would you like me to check that the links are archived as we go forward with GA? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: Sure, though I don't think this is required to obtain Good status. Is there a tool that can scan the URLs in the article and archive appropriately, or is this an entirely manual process? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@Another Believer:, I think it's a GA thing. I'm going through the review process with Woman's club movement and I was asked to archive my weblinks. I've been doing it by hand... it never occurred to me to look for a tool to do it automatically. I'll look into that, though, because it's a tedious process. :P Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, ok. I can see how some editors might like archiving as part of the GA process. I've promoted over 75 articles but don't recall ever being required to archive all URLs in an article. I'll try to help as I can. Thanks for this! I am super excited to co-nominate this article soon. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@Another Believer:, you are more experienced than me, then, with GA. This is my first article to send on my own to GA. I've done it with another user, but she did most of the ref work. ;) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl: OK, then, let's hold off on going through the entire article and see if the reviewer asks this of us. This task seems more appropriate for a Featured article nomination. I am comfortable nominating the article on our behalf as soon as Washington, D.C., and West Palm Beach are researched, and we make a call re: international activities. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

"Organization" "Preparation and planning" section

Latest comment: 7 years ago13 comments2 people in discussion

@RileyBugz: Do you plan on expanding this section? I'm not sure it's necessary since there is so little content, half of which is mentioned in the lead immediately above. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I planned on just starting it so that other editors could expand it. Also, if it is mentioned in the lead, it should be mentioned in the body. In general, it is discouraged to place citations in the lead, as it is, again, preferred that it be mentioned in the body (with a citation, of course). RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@RileyBugz: I am not sure what else would be added to this section, though. With this in mind, what do you think should be done with this section and the lead? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Other things can be added. For example, see this. There is information there that could be added. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
What would you add from this source? Also, re: "Before some rallies, there was a poster-making session", isn't this true of most demonstrations? I'm not sure this detail should be included. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I actually just added a bit from it. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
The poster-making thing might have to be removed, but I think that somebody who actually knows a thing or two about rallies (i.e. not me) should look into this. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@RileyBugz: I changed the section heading to "Preparation and planning" per the 2017 Women's March article. Does this work for you? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
It works, although I think that organization may be better as it is shorter. Your call here. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@RileyBugz: When I see "Organization", it makes me think there is an organization called "Not My Presidents Day". I'd be fine with just "preparations" or "planning", if length is a concern, but I prefer something other than "Organization". ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh, that makes sense. In that case, keep it as is. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: Bringing you into this conversation, in case you have any thoughts on the "Organization" "Preparation and planning" section or can think of things to add based on the sourcing you've contributed to this article. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 7 years ago58 comments3 people in discussion

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Not My Presidents Day/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Prinsgezinde (talk · contribs) 14:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


I will be reviewing this page today. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Great! Thank you. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl: Pinging you, in case you don't receive a notification on your talk page like I did. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@Another Believer: thanks for the head's up. I should be available all day to address any issues. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Assessment

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
  1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Well written. Just a few minor mistakes I found:
Suggest replacing or removing "literally" in "while Trump was literally the president", as it gives the phrase unnecessary emphasis.
"demonstrations were held in outside" > remove "in"
"went into the evening" should be reworded
"group called "Bad and Nasty' Baltimore" a "day of art and activism"" is missing a verb
  1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. MOS:LEADALT suggests that editors "... balance the desire to maximize the information available to the reader with the need to maintain readability". While "Not My Presidents Day" and "Not My President's Day" are clearly widespread, I'm not entirely convinced of the notability other two spellings. Their inclusion is also so similar that they don't add much to the article in terms of information.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
  2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Nothing more to add.
  2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). The vast majority are well established local media outlets but also nation-wide big ones. No sketchy sources detected. There are two by Sputnik and RT but they are used uncontroversially. In short, no issues with their reliability.
However, a clear problem is that the article contains many quotes and/or words and phrases within quotation marks that are not directly attributed. Per MOS:QUOTE's subsection on attribution, these should either be replaced with your own words or explicitly attributed. EDIT: Most of these should be reworded. Per MOS:QUOTE, "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words."
  2c. it contains no original research. Everything in the article is sourced.
  2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Clean.
3. Broad in its coverage:
  3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. The article is missing a section on reactions, views, support, effect, criticism etc. (easily combined into one section) from accross the US. What influence did it have? Did any prominent politicians have anything to say about it? Did the organizers follow up with anything? There should be plenty to find on this.
More information could also be added to the civil conflict infobox. There were seemingly some other methods than demonstrations such as vigils, leafletting and picketing. Also: what were its goals? Did it have any notable lead figures? What were their goals and what did they achieve? Were any of those arrested ever charged, detained or fined?
  3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Remains consistently concise.
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Factual information on the events and no apparent editorializing. Well done.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Remarkably, no edit wars. The recent merge discussion could have been a problem but overwhelmingly rejected the applicability of the older decision on the current article. Ergo, the article can be declared stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. All images are uncontroversial. The one that isn't from Flickr is credited by VOA to belong to their own agency and is therefore free to use.
  6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. While the maps are interesting, they unfortunately clutter up the article at the moment. Especially the large United States map takes up a lot of space. While this is not necessarily wrong, the article already contains numerous other images and media files which makes it a bit of an overkill. Is the United States map necessary? Or could some of them be moved or made smaller?
  7. Overall assessment. Most of the work has already been done. If the remaining issues can be resolved I will alter the respective criteria ratings. Let me know if there is anything you wish to be clarified or don't agree with.

Discussion

I propose addressing your concerns in a bulleted list below:

  • 1a: I removed the words "literally" and "in", per your requests. I changed "went into the evening" to "lasted into the evening". Does this help? I also added "organized", so the sentence now reads, "... group called 'Bad and Nasty' Baltimore' organized a 'day of art and activism'..." I hope these address your concerns, but do let me know if you had something different in mind. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • 1b: @Prinsgezinde: I agree with you re: "Not My President Day" (which I removed from the lead), but I think we should leave the alternate spellings of Presidents vs. President's vs. Presidents', as all three can be found in sourcing. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
i will also note that, while this does not have anything to do with sourcing about this evening specifically, the Washington's Birthday article includes Presidents' Day in bold text in the lead as an alternate title. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah, of course. It completely went over my head that that spelling takes on the spelling of "Presidents' Day". I'll change it. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • 2a:   Done
  • 2b: @Prinsgezinde: You said, "However, a clear problem is that the article contains many quotes and/or words and phrases within quotation marks that are not directly attributed." However, both Megalibrarygirl and I are surprised by this comment. Can you be more specific? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • 2c:   Done
  • 2d:   Done
  • 3a: I've started this section and would like some feedback. Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • What's there is good. But it's not a lot yet. Will you add the effects and aftermath to that section or will that be a new one? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Prinsgezinde, I've added more to the section and expanded out the planning section, too. Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm glad the planning section has expanded. Improvements could still be made to the Aftermath/impact/followup section (expand) and the infobox. We're close! Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • 3b:   Done
  • 4:   Done
    • Neutrality was our primary focus throughout, and I am glad you've deemed this article's content as such. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • 5:   Done
  • 6a:   Done
  • 6b: Unfortunately, the maps cannot be made smaller without the text getting jumbled together. You find the maps 'interesting'. User:Megalibrarygirl and I both like the maps, as does the editor who we reached out for help at the Graphics Lab. No editor has openly stated a problem with any of the maps, and this article has received quite a bit of traffic and feedback given all the discussions on the talk page and on other project pages. Perhaps the US map could be collapsed?, but I don't really know if that is preferred. Are you open to leaving the maps because they do not go against Good article criteria, and we can just see over time if editors raise any concerns about their inclusion? If we find them helpful for the purposes of illustration, then I think we should consider leaving them, at least for now. Thoughts? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It is a well done job, absolutely. And I would hate to see it gone for the sake of looking pretty. I was only slightly concerned with the amount of media on the page. Perhaps when more text has been added there will be more space for it? For now, be assured that this is not a case for failing the article. I'll change the "neutral" to "?" for clarity's sake. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • 7: Discussion below

@Megalibrarygirl: Feel free to add your own within this framework as you see fit. Just trying to make this an organized discussion since we have more than 2 editors, and I'd prefer not to enter comments into the table above for the purposes of organization and simplicity. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer:, I'll try to address 3a right now. However, I'm confused about where we used quotes and didn't attribute. I didn't think that had happened. It seems like we'll have to comb through each reference and double check. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl: Yeah, I didn't really think this would be identified as a problem either. I am addressing some of the other concerns right now, but will try to revisit. Thanks for taking a look as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
As I said, not all are necessarily quotes. Some were phrases and/or words within quotation marks. But these still need to be attributed (meaning not only cited) or adjusted to avoid becoming scarequotes or simply gratuitous. But also remember that in many of these cases, simply removing the quotation marks and (if necessary) rewording it slightly gives a better result. Examples from the article:
Good (attribution clear, actual quote):
  • Participants reportedly chanted "We need a leader, not a creepy tweeter" and sang "God Bless America" and "The Star-Spangled Banner".
  • The protests in Miami and Palm Beach were organized by South Florida Activism, and included a gathering at Palm Beach International Airport where participants turned their backs to Trump's motorcade en route to Mar-a-Lago, wearing shirts that displayed "No 45."
  • The group who protested outside of Wheeler's home obtained a permit for the demonstration, however, the organizer, Gregory McKelvey, also said that the mayor is "perpetuating this idea we only get hurt or sprayed or physically beat because we don't have a permit."
Bad (not an actual quote, not attributed or gratuitous):
  • The 16th Street Mall and nearby streets were shut down for around two hours, but no arrests were made and businesses experienced "limited disruptions". (Who said this?)
  • Only 18 people expressed interest in attending the event on its Facebook page, and fewer than ten individuals ended up participating. The protest reportedly saw "five or six people arguing with a lone Donald Trump supporter".
  • State senator, Art Haywood, attended the Philadelphia rally and there was a "family-friendly fun station" set up for children of protesters.
  • @Prinsgezinde: I removed "fun" and the quotation marks, so it just reads "family-friendly station set up..". ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • A "modest gathering" in Pasadena was organized by a small group of "concerned" mothers and their children, led by Jenna Karvunidis.
  • In Ann Arbor, a "Bad Hombres and Nasty Women" event featuring "uncensored performances" expected an attendance of 600 people; proceeds benefited Planned Parenthood.
  • The "uncensored performances" part.
  • The sentence now reads, "... featuring reportedly "uncensored" performances expected..." I added the word 'reportedly' but kept 'uncensored' in quotation marks. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually, Megalibrarygirl changed the sentence to just say 'live performances', which works for me. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The event attracted around 50 participants; candles were distributed and lit to represent the "flame of progress to be held unwavering in the future".
  • One protester was tackled by the police and then shot with "non-lethal projectiles".[106] One man who was "one step off the curb" in the street was pushed to the ground by police, had his arms pinned to his back and then was pepper-sprayed in the face; and a woman was shoved to the sidewalk and then shot with "pepper balls" by police.
Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I removed the quotation marks around 'non-lethal projectiles' and added 'reportedly' in front of "one step off the curb". ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm still not sure I understand the problem. I am quoting the news articles or whoever was reporting. Do we really need to say "according to a report" each time? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
According to MOS:QUOTE, yes. It is a quotation after all. But I stress that in many cases they don't need to be quotes. Simply remove the quotation marks and make it fit the sentence. For example, "non-lethal projectiles" in the above-mentioned sentence does not need to be within quotation marks. "modest gathering" can simply be changing to "gathering" (again without the quotation marks). Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, I tried to make improvements, but please let me know if additional concerns remain. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Much better. I went through the article again and there are only two quotations left that I see as inappropriate. Both are in the second paragraph of "Locations and activities".
  • It lasted into the evening and had a reportedly "different tone than elsewhere in the rest of the country, with less protesting, more talking".
  • Reword or give credit to who said it, as this is a largely subjective statement.
  • A group called "Bad and Nasty' Baltimore" organized a "day of art and activism", which included face painting, sign making, and a workshop titled "our Democratic Heritage".
  • "day of art and activism" is too generic to put between quotes. Quotation marks can simply be removed here. The other two quotes are fine, although I'm pretty sure the single apostrophe after "Nasty" is not supposed to be there.
After fixing these I'll change the criteria rating. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@Prinsgezinde: I added "CBS Baltimore" to the first and removed quotes around "day of art and activism". Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Good job there, that's another thing done then. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Prinsgezinde, I merged some of the media (NY and Oregon in particular) and did some image staggering. I quite like how the article is illustrated, but let me know if you have any concerns. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, what exactly was done? I'm noticing a much better lay-out but can't determine the specifics. I see some new maps and less separate external media boxes but would like to hear it from you. Thank you. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure, so here's a diff (feel free to ignore all of the reference formatting and just focus on the media changes). Not major changes, but really I just merged the External media templates in the New York and Oregon sections, lined media up along the right side of the page and made them the same width, giving a very uniform appearance. I also did some image staggering in order to minimize section heading disturbances. The text in the US map was too jumbled in the Northeast, so I removed NY entries and created a new map for this state. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Got it. As mentioned above, the last step is in coverage. The two things that still need expansion are Infobox content and the Aftermath/impact/followup section. When those are expanded the lay-out will change again. With more space, some more things could be moved to the right to avoid the section heading disturbances you mentioned it should be noted that differents screens have different resolutions, so one person's lay-out may not be exactly the same as another's. That's why large content is preferably on the right side, but it's not mandatory. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Right now, only the NY section heading is disturbed, which does not bother me. I think the current layout looks great, but we'll see if any further changes are helpful if the article is expanded further. I'm at a loss for what else to add to the article re: outcomes, goals, etc., but I'll see if Megalibrarygirl has other thoughts. Most of the sourcing is logistical in nature, describing what took place and when. Opposition to Trump is obvious, but other goals? Not clear, or at least not specific and uniform thoughout to note in an infobox, in my opinion. I also don't think there are any single leaders worth noting in the infobox. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Some figures seem important. They don't need to be actual "leaders", just leading figures of the movement. Holly Hughes had a big hand in organizing it, and Gregory McKelvey was noted for his organizing of the problematic Portland event. Also, I meant a single section for the aftermath. It could have subsections for reactions and impact etc. The thing is, of course media would report the events as they happened. But the article needs assessment sources, if you know what I mean. Perhaps some of the groups that participated in the demonstrations have material on their website? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, singling out any specific organizers would be giving them undue weight. This event was a series of local events, not a 'movement', and there were not primary national organizers like there have been in other recent protests. Megalibrarygirl may have a differing opinion, but I don't think we should emphasize local organizers and put focus on some over others. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
"civil conflict" infoboxes are commonly used when there are two clear sides. The other side in this case could contain "Pro-Trump protesters" or even "Portland police"; though it also wasn't truly a conflict (except maybe in Portland), so it's also worth considering swapping to Template:Infobox event. Either way, the current infobox doesn't say anything that isn't already in the lead. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl and Prinsgezinde: Prinsgezinde, I am not sure if Megalibrarygirl is still tinkering with things or not, but at this point I think we could both use clear, specific needs in order for this article to meet GA criteria. See my comment above re: local organizers, and do you have a specific section heading for groups the reactions and impact sections? ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

"Aftermath" is standard. It can include reactions, impact, possible followups and anything inbetween. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Alright, I placed the Reactions and Impact sections under an Aftermath heading. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh I like that so much better. Thanks, Another Believer. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Prinsgezinde: Please let us know if any outstanding concerns remain. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Sincere apologies, I was unexpectedly busy and only able to access Wikipedia on my phone (which is still a pain). As above, consider changing the infobox to "Infobox event" if it can't be expanded otherwise. The rest seems to be in order. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@Prinsgezinde:   Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm very satisfied with the result. It was only my second GA review but it went quite smoothly, all things considered. The article is now considered a "good article" and I'll be adding it accordingly. Thanks to you both for the cooperation. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking time to review this nomination. Much appreciated! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Not_My_Presidents_Day/Archive_2&oldid=1052128631"