Jump to content

Talk:1948 Newfoundland referendums

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article1948 Newfoundland referendums 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 30, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
March 21, 2007Good article nomineeListed
February 27, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Merge

[edit]

Check out Talk:Newfoundland National Convention#Requested merge. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 03:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moot point, title will probably go with the merge, but should be 'referenda' not referendums. Ex nihil 05:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enh, I think that's debatable - "Referenda" is one of those Latin plurals that appears to be on it's way out in Canadian English. I would argue that it's about 50/50 in current usage AshleyMorton 01:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GA

[edit]

This is a promising article. It is well-cited, appears to be broad in coverage and NPOV, and uses tagged images with a clear fair use rationale. However, it fails to live up to criterion 1a, that of "compelling prose". Most of the sentences in the article are very short and unvaried in style. Generally, the prose reads a bit too monotonously, as if it was written at an intentionally low reading level.

The background section could also use some expansion, explaining directly what is meant in this context by "local representative government" and "responsible government".

With a bit of improvement in the prose, I'm sure that this article will pass. Please do resubmit it. MLilburne 12:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA-review

[edit]

There has been good additions since the failed nomination but all of the points raised in the Failed GA comments above still need work and need to be addressed before promotion. I get the feeling little effort was made to address those comments. All the positive points raised in the last round still hold true.

The sentences are just too punchy.
I also don't think that the issue of what "local representative government" and "responsible government" has been covered.
Minor point but references are best placed after punctuation and should not be placed just before.Peter Rehse 01:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the references and did a bit of work on the Background section which I thought was the worst with respect to prose. I'll do a bit here and there but I think the original authors need to take a careful look also.Peter Rehse 04:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really didn't think that representative or responsible government needed any further explanation because this is an encyclopedia, and anything not understood can be looked up very easily. It would probably help if someone other than me looked over this article because I've written most of it. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 22:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I felt it did mainly because each form could manifest itself in different ways.Peter Rehse 01:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I failed it for reasons of prose. Please read the comments in both nominations.Peter Rehse 00:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind - took me a lttle while but I think I fixed the prose up sufficiantly.Peter Rehse 05:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the language

[edit]

The English in this article needs to be checked, the text is filled with errors. At the moment, I find it surprising to see a good article nomination for an article so poorly written. JdeJ 01:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually its borderline and the author could fix it up with a little effort. I put the article Microsoft word grammer check. There were a small number of spelling mistakes but more telling the number of passive sentences was high at 27% as was the correlated Flesch Reading Ease index at 32.4 (the lower the better and I think it should be 2/3 that). The Flesch-Kinkaid Grade Level was 12. I failed the article because no effort was made to address the issue.Peter Rehse 04:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell I did a copyedit using MS-word grammer check and a bit of common sense. I'm going to promote to GA status.Peter Rehse 05:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps Review: 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'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article and expanded the lead (although it could be expanded further). 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. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Newfoundland referendums, 1948. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Newfoundland referendums, 1948. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1948_Newfoundland_referendums&oldid=1229985937"