Talk:Taylor, British Columbia

Good Article Candidate??

This is one of several articles about towns in BC that I have come across which I consider to be models that other articles should aspire to match. Have those doing the work here considered taking this through the Wikipedia:Good articles/Candidates process? See also Wikipedia:Good articles KenWalker | Talk 23:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Good articles is just something made up in school one day. It was forced into the article assessment ranks by its aggressive proponents but has no official standing in Wikipedia and means the same thing as A-class ranking (except "good articles" are kept on a list at WP:GA, while A-class article have no list). Why was this given a B-class rank? What is wrong with it? ·maclean 02:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, lots of good things have been made up in school . . .:-). You may know more about it than I do, but it seemed to me that moving up the assessment scale to GA was a process that would take a very good article and see if a group of experienced editors have any suggestions for making it even better. Nothing at all wrong with it to my eye as it is. When I look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_British_Columbia/Assessment#Quality_scale, A class articles have been "peer reviewed where appropriate" so I suggested a GA process (which I think it would go through easily) which ought to end up with an A or FA rating. I have referred to this article as a model for others to follow. In fact, relative to the size of the community, it is exceptional. My congrats to those responsible. I would have started the GA process myself, but the proposer is supposed to take responsibility for participating in any efforts suggested in the process. KenWalker | Talk 04:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:GA has the merit that a neutral (or at least independent) eye looks at the article, and it often is more effective than peer review in improving pages. Other than that, I would rate this article as A (and I'm doing just that). --Qyd 05:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Rating A works for me. Now what about FA? KenWalker | Talk 05:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the A rating. The FA rating is the same as the A rating except it has community concensus (from some of the most nitpicking editors we have). It would take weeks of copyediting to get it ready for WP:FAC to pass, then weeks of tweaking at FAC, then years of hostage negotiation to keep it from WP:FARC. It demands a lot of time and attention that I'd rather spend writing an article. ·maclean 06:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Taylor, BC logo.png

Image:Taylor, BC logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Taylor, BC flag.png

Image:Taylor, BC flag.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Impressive

Wow; great stuff; I don't suppose I could persuade you to take on the roster of Cariboo and Omineca towns once you're down with the Peace? ;-) Skookum1 03:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• It is a slow process. Choose a town and I'll add what I can. --maclean 04:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)