Talk:The Absent-Minded Beggar

GA issues

This article is listed as a GA, but it has no lead section. GA articles are supposed to meet WP:LEAD. I'll hold off on delisting until someone can take a look and perhaps fix the problem. Mike Christie (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I prettied it up a bit. Any other comments? -- Ssilvers 13:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dang, that was quick. Nice work. That certainly looks nicer, and addresses my concern. If I get a chance I'll take a look and come up with other questions; if not, it's because I'm impressed. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Lyrics

An editor suggested removing the lyrics, since they are available on Wikisource. I think we should keep them in the article. They are public domain, and they are wikilinked and footnoted (and illustrated with a contemporary image). Wikisource is nice, but for the casual reader of Wikipedia, it is far more convenient to display them right in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Mmmh... yes and no. I think this is sufficiently large that they unbalance the whole thing; we end up with a poem with an introduction, if you see what I mean. Perhaps just the first stanza, and a prominent link through to the full text? Shimgray | talk | 19:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ssilvers. The point about including the words in the article is that the article is put in context by quoting them. It's not as though the words were very long. In the case of many other lyrics this would not be so important, but without the words immediately before one this article would lose much of its impact. If the words were unavailable (e.g. because in copyright) so be it, but as they are not it would be silly to limit ourselves and weaken this article. Tim riley (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Shimgray, the lyrics aren't that long, but they have a lot of white space between the lines. Can anyone format them to close them up? Then the whole poem would fit in just over one screen. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely the images, but I can't figure out how to get rid of it without removing them entirely. Shimgray | talk | 20:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much about HTML, but I know how to cut and paste other people's HTML, and I think I've got it! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha! I see that you understand the HTML better than I do. Feel free to increase width or max-width even more if it looks better. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Loud applause to both - this looks really spot on. Tim riley (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:The Absent-Minded Beggar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I am reassessing this articles GA status as part of the WP:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

No obvious problems when checking against quick fail criteria. proceed to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • The article is reasonably well written, I was a little puzzled by the allusions to "Gentleman in Kharki", perhaps an explanation of this alternate spelling could be included in further revisions? Jezhotwells (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)  Done Jezhotwells (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   b (MoS):

   • The article complies sufficiently with the MoS. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • The article is referenced throughout.

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • Broadly speaking OK, I am concerned by reference #6 which appears to be a self published source WP:SPS and thus not categorized as a WP:RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The page was written by Simon Fowler, the editor of Ancestors, the family history magazine of the National Archives and formerly editor of Family History Monthly, a UK genealogical magazine, from 2000 to 2004. Fowler's Wikipedia article says that he has published several books in the fild and was an archivist at the Public Record Office for 20 years. His online bio also says that he was active with the Royal Star and Garter Home and the Society of Genealogists. His history-related articles have appeared in Local History Magazine, Family Tree Magazine, History Today, BBC History Magazine and several academic journals. He was secretary of Labour Heritage, the Labour Oral History Project and the Friendly Societies Research Group. He is also active with the London Archive Users Forum and the Brewery and Pub History societies. The SPS guideline allows the citation to SPSs "when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", which Fowler is/has been, wouldn't you say? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• OK, I accept that, I did not that on his site he mentioned some of those things. I will assume good faith for that and strike that concern. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

1. c (OR):

   • I find no evidence of OR

2. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • The article is broad in scope....

   b (focused):

   • .... and focused. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • The article adheres to a NPOV. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   • I find no evidence of editwarring. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • Images are tagged and suitable fair use rationales appended. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • Appropriately used and captioned. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • I would like to suggest that an alternate source for the three statements cited by Refrence #6 which is not an RS, I believe. On hold whilst this is addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Must be the shortest on hold in history. I am happy with explanation above and the addition of the note about the spelling. Thanks. GA status confirmed. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Would like to ask for some help.

reference number 6 is a reference to my research (and is linked to a slide show of a powerpoint of my talk). As this is my research, I would like an acknowledgment directly.

reference number 10 is also a reference to my research (John Cannon article is a report of my talk at Bristol). Again, I would like an acknowledgement. It seems strange to reference the report of the paper, and not the paper itself.

Thanks, John Lee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.180.76 (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)