Talk:Millennium '73/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Millennium '73. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Traffic stats
[1], [2]. Interesting stuff. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I've finally found an article that's less-read than Kodak DCS! -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
FAR?
An editor has suggested that this article may need to undergo a featured article review. I've copied his concerns below, for the consideration of any who may be watching this page. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I am nominating this featured article for review because it is clear no one is maintaining it and it has fallen into a serious state of disrepair: there are 32 ref errors in the article staring at us in bold and 3 dead links. Note only 2 edits have been made this year, one by a bot. Wiki community needs to pay better attention to it's FAs. Amador Valley High School got to the main page a few days ago with 19, yes, 19 dead links. This is embarrassing. I will notify WP:Houston and WP:Prem Rawat, and user Momento. He's the only major editor still active. Will Beback alone accounted for over half the edits but he's been banned. He and Momento together account for over 90% of the edits. The talk page has 3-4 edits in two years, with the 2 edits this year to the article it's clear this one is not being maintained.PumpkinSky talk 02:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- How can I help?Momento (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- The best thing would probably be to see what you can do to address PS's concerns - fixing reference issues and dead links (PS, was there anything else?). This and this might be helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Someone good at writing should check the prose.PumpkinSky talk 14:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- The best thing would probably be to see what you can do to address PS's concerns - fixing reference issues and dead links (PS, was there anything else?). This and this might be helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I can write but if the main problem is "32 ref errors in the article staring at us in bold and 3 dead links" the article needs a technical over haul and I have no experience with Harvard citations. I am loath to copy edit this article as it is the result of two warring factions and removing anything may result in me being banned for 12 months for "removing sourced material".Momento (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- How can I help?Momento (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- It seems to me that there are 19 broken footnotes and 17 "unused" references—many prolly due to the broken footnotes. What's really shocking is that this article actually passed FAC in this condition in teh first place. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)