Jump to content

Talk:Mona Best

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleMona Best 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
December 8, 2007Good article nomineeListed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 9, 2017, October 9, 2018, and January 3, 2024.

Casbah

[edit]

The link to the Casbah is incorrect (links to the San Diego club), but I don't know how to find the correct Casbah.

There isn't one (yet).LessHeard vanU 15:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd advocate moving this and using it as the basis of a Casbah article. It's the club that's notable, not Mona Best. --kingboyk 17:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mona is now cited in Pete Best, as is the club.--andreasegde 12:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA

[edit]

This is now up for a GA. --andreasegde (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that there is not a lot of information about Mona, but this article is dedicated to her business exploits in the early 1960s. --andreasegde (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA quick fail

[edit]

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to fail this article's GA nomination. Per GA criteria, stub articles cannot attain GA status. Please feel free to renominate the article once it has been expanded, however. Happy editing! Frickative (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might look at a few of the other GA-class articles and compare length. This one is certainly of sufficient length to be reviewed. When the criteria speaks of unreviewable stubs, they're talking about tiny ones without any sections. Please reconsider the quick-fail. Thank you, VanTucky talk 23:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously in light of that I would be happy to withdraw the quick fail, however feel that the GA criteria needs rewording to indicate your explanation. I understood that the GA backlog was such that new reviewers were strongly encouraged, yet such ambiguity in what is seemingly clear cut criteria (no lists, portals, images, stubs or disambig pages) makes me very weary of continuing to review, lest I breech any further protocol which evidently should be and yet is not obvious. Frickative (talk) 02:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Breaching the protocol" i.e. making a perfectly easy mistake, is not something unusual for new reviewers (I can think of a few infinitely worse blunders I've performed myself). Besides, the system is intentionally less bureaucratic than FA. If you change your mind within a reasonable amount of time, then just change the templates. You're the reviewer :) As to the issue, yes you're absolutely correct. It is pretty vague. I'll bring it up (with this example) at the proper discussion page. VanTucky talk 02:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the heads-up, at any rate. I've reversed the templates and added the article back at WP:GAN with its original nomination date :) Frickative (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks people. I am to blame for not spotting the wrong category at the bottom of the page. Sorry. --andreasegde (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Porky Pies

[edit]

It seems the story about Mona winning a 33-1 bet and using the winnings to buy the house which later had the Casbah is true, but the dates are wrong. The race was in 1954, and she bought the house in 1957, which is not how the Bests tell it: Rory saw house, Mona put on bet and won, Mona bought house. A good story, but not true. --andreasegde (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review (on hold)

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)

I've reviewed the article and noticed a few things that don't allow the article to pass the criteria (linked to above). They are mostly minor and with a few fixes I believe the article can be promoted.

  1. In general, per WP:MOSLINKS all full dates (month and day) should be linked, including the "accessdate" links in the references. Most of the rest of the dates are fine though.
 Done Fixed them. --andreasegde (talk) 10:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I believe that reference #4 is pointing to the wrong page, but if it points to "Pete's biog" as I believe it is supposed to, I'm not sure that it supports the first sentence that it follows.
 Done I couldn't get it to go the right page, so I took it out, as it was not really needed anyway. --andreasegde (talk) 10:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. References #44 and 56 and #'s 46 and 58 are the same. I understand they are referring to different parts of the article, but according to WP:Citing sources, the full article title needs to be included in a reference. If {{cite web}} is used there is a parameter to add a quote from the article, or if not, then I'm not sure why it uses the extra reference.
 Done I took 44 out, and I merged the two cnn.com references together. 37 has also been merged. --andreasegde (talk) 11:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The images included in the article don't have source information (I believe that is part of the Fair Use Rationale, if I'm wrong sorry and disregard this point).
 Done I've never had a problem with that before. Maybe it's only when it's from a webpage? --andreasegde (talk) 11:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The fair use rationale for Image:Mona Best.jpg says it is for the Pete Best article and doesn't mention this article.
 Done I put her on Pete's page, and then started this, but forgot to change it. Ouch! --andreasegde (talk) 10:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once these are fixed just leave a note here or on my talk page and I'll look again and most likely pass it. Also, though it says that an article should only be "On Hold" for seven days, if someone is working on it and the time expires I'll be very lenient on the time. If someone disagrees with my assessments please leave a note here or on my talk page and I can look it over again or even ask for a second opinion. Phydend (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Successful good article nomination

[edit]

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 8, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass

Everything seems to be fine now. The article is obviously neutral and stable, thorough in coverage of her and doesn't go too deep into coverage of Pete or even the Casbah, the references are all fine now, and it seems well written to me. Everything was explained and fixed, so I'm passing it. Good job. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Phydend (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thank thee kindly, good Sir. I would second you to be a member of my club anyday, don't you know.. :) --andreasegde (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

Any edit made without a verifiable reference will be deleted, including edits that are slipped into referenced sentences, BTW. --andreasegde (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mona Best. 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 13:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mona Best. 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) 23:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mona Best. 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) 17:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mona Best. 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) 07:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mona Best. 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) 06:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mona_Best&oldid=1206047707"