Revision as of 16:07, 13 June 2008 editEsrever (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers39,494 edits added wikiproject WikiProject Universities «B»; banner shell← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:31, 29 March 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,815,464 editsm Remove unknown param from WP New York (state): Cornell-importanceTag: AWB |
(17 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{GAR/link|page=1}} |
|
|
|
|action1=AFD |
|
{{GA nominee|15:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)|status=|}} |
|
|
|
|action1date=15:07, 20 May 2006 |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sphinx Head Society |
|
{{Project Cornell|class=B|nested=yes}} |
|
|
|
|action1result=delete |
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Universities|class=B|nested=yes}} |
|
|
|
|action1oldid=53275965 |
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Secret Societies|class=B|importance=Low|nested=yes}} |
|
⚫ |
}} |
|
|
{{oldafdfull|date=15 May 2006|result='''delete'''}} |
|
|
{{oldafdfull|date=9 December 2007|votepage=Sphinx Head|result='''keep'''}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=AFD |
|
|
|action2date=14:41, 17 December 2007 |
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sphinx Head |
|
|
|action2result=keep |
|
|
|action2oldid=178320191 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=GAN |
|
I dont understand why this article would be considered for deletion. If you have any suggestions for how to make it better please post them here. ] (]) 16:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action3date=22:25, 15 June 2008 |
|
|
|action3link=Talk:Sphinx Head/GA1 |
|
|
|action3result=not listed |
|
|
|action3oldid=219491978 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=FGAN |
|
:The biggest issue I would see for this article is the list of notable alumni. If you look at some of the pages regarding freemasonry, and its appendant/concordant bodies, we have tried to limit those lists to only a very few, specifically looking at those who are notable because of their membership, or their activities which relate to their membership in the group.--] (]) 18:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|topic=socsci |
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
}} |
|
== New York Times reference == |
|
|
|
{{Talkheader}} |
|
Can a single remark in a 541 word article appearing over 79 years ago in the <i>New York Times</i> be construed as a basis for that paper's endorsement: 'recognized by The New York Times as "the highest non-scholastic honor within reach of undergraduates.'? I do not think this citation in a very old article can be construed as any sort of endorsement that the current day paper would undertake about the current day society. And while I pray that this article's wait in the Good Article nomination queue will be considerably shorter than 79 years, I do hope that editors will make use of intervening time to consider how well such references work. In addition, I find that the very comprehensive, and apparently very carefully referenced, list of notable alumni detracts from the article. In my opinion, the list as a whole plunges into considerably greater detail about just one facet of the society — notable alumni — than what other facets explored by the article do. The list is about an invigorating a read as a telephone directory. In light of this, please consider the ] guideline; a paragraph of clear prose far outweighs an exhaustive, even exhaustively referenced, list, which is a mechanical communication effort at best – my humble opinion, of course. ] (]) 14:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1= |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities|importance=low}} |
|
== GA == |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject New York (state)|importance=Low|Cornell=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Higher education}} |
|
I've remove the article from ] because it is more of a list than an article. If you want to, you can nominate it at ]. |
|
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Secret Societies|importance=Low}} |
|
:I disagree with this. |
|
|
|
}} |
|
# The article was nominated in good faith. |
|
|
|
{{to do}} |
|
# It has been in the queue for a long time |
|
|
# It does not obviously ]. |
|
|
# In light of that, it should remain on queue until such time that an editor can evaluate the article fully in connection with the ] and render a decision in accordance with those criteria. |
|
|
Simply removing an article from the nomination queue for a reason that has not been established as a quick-fail criterion is irregular, which has a knock on effect on the trustworthiness of the Good Article nomination and evaluation process. I've made further remarks ]. ] has opened a ] page as well. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. ] (]) 17:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
=== GA Review of Sphinx Head === |
|
|
Following the discussion on the ], there is general agreement that a misunderstanding has taken place, that articles should depart from the nomination queue only after an evaluation has taken place and has been published on a subpage. I am undertaking that review now. Accordingly, I am taking the extraordinary steps of reverting ]'s edits to restore the {{tl|GA nominee}} template and establish a review page, which will be transcluded to this section here. Apologies to the editors awaiting an evaluation for so long now. Thank you for your patience. ] (]) 15:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC) |
|