Talk:Great Society/Draft: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Richard Jensen (parody) |
imported>D. Matt Innis (→Nominate For Approval: objections to approval) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
::::I'm just a lowly reader, like dust beneath the chariot wheels of the lofty Editors, but I certainly wouldn't nominate any article for approval that has such a sloppily written and badly edited "Memory" section, which is also loaded with one-sided declarations of opinion that need to be qualified and/or sourced and cited. If the rest of the article is as "good" as this one section, then it absolutely should not be approved. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 21:09, 1 July 2008 (CDT) | ::::I'm just a lowly reader, like dust beneath the chariot wheels of the lofty Editors, but I certainly wouldn't nominate any article for approval that has such a sloppily written and badly edited "Memory" section, which is also loaded with one-sided declarations of opinion that need to be qualified and/or sourced and cited. If the rest of the article is as "good" as this one section, then it absolutely should not be approved. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 21:09, 1 July 2008 (CDT) | ||
::"dust beneath the chariot wheels" is such bad writing, that I assume this is a parody. tell us what is "sloppy" and what is "badly edited" or forever hold your peace, lest a fate worse than literary death await thee. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 21:23, 1 July 2008 (CDT) | ::"dust beneath the chariot wheels" is such bad writing, that I assume this is a parody. tell us what is "sloppy" and what is "badly edited" or forever hold your peace, lest a fate worse than literary death await thee. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 21:23, 1 July 2008 (CDT) | ||
==Approval process== | |||
I see a couple of objections to approval above. I'll wait till later tonight before approving this article to give anyone a chance to handle them. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 16:05, 8 July 2008 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 16:05, 8 July 2008
Richard, will you indicate the source of the article. I assume you wrote it, originally for here? Nancy Sculerati 02:05, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
- no this is from Wiki; sorry if i didn't check that box. Richard Jensen 02:11, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
Is it something that you wrote for Wikipedia? Are you expanding it here? I love all your articles and I respect you tremendously, it's really great to see the History Workgroup taken in hand, I'm just wondering where all these full blown articles are coming from, and what your plans are for approval. Nancy Sculerati 06:48, 26 April 2007 (CDT) (aka Mother Hen)
- I wrote part of it for Wiki. I did LOTS of articles for them. in this case I did less than 50%. Every article I bring over gets revised by me immediately. I usually drop low quality stuff and beef up the bibliog, and do a little rewriting. I am only bringing in articles that I had a major hand in writing. Richard Jensen 07:50, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
- I revised and added new material, and a reading list, and dropped useless wikipedia links.Richard Jensen 13:29, 27 June 2008 (CDT)
- I wrote part of it for Wiki. I did LOTS of articles for them. in this case I did less than 50%. Every article I bring over gets revised by me immediately. I usually drop low quality stuff and beef up the bibliog, and do a little rewriting. I am only bringing in articles that I had a major hand in writing. Richard Jensen 07:50, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
Nominate For Approval
- Because of the July 4 holiday in the U.S. and (more importantly) the fact that this nomination isn't showing up on the History: To Approve page, I've extended the nomination period a few more days.
Roger Lohmann 19:43, 1 July 2008 (CDT)
- I'm just a lowly reader, like dust beneath the chariot wheels of the lofty Editors, but I certainly wouldn't nominate any article for approval that has such a sloppily written and badly edited "Memory" section, which is also loaded with one-sided declarations of opinion that need to be qualified and/or sourced and cited. If the rest of the article is as "good" as this one section, then it absolutely should not be approved. Hayford Peirce 21:09, 1 July 2008 (CDT)
- "dust beneath the chariot wheels" is such bad writing, that I assume this is a parody. tell us what is "sloppy" and what is "badly edited" or forever hold your peace, lest a fate worse than literary death await thee. Richard Jensen 21:23, 1 July 2008 (CDT)
Approval process
I see a couple of objections to approval above. I'll wait till later tonight before approving this article to give anyone a chance to handle them. D. Matt Innis 16:05, 8 July 2008 (CDT)