| Revision as of 01:26, 2 January 2013 editAhnoneemoos (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users16,167 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 02:09, 7 January 2013 edit undoAhnoneemoos (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users16,167 edits ←Redirected page to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico | ||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | #REDIRECT ] | ||
| {{Auto archiving notice|bot=ClueBot III|age=30}} | |||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| |format=Y/F | |||
| |age=720 | |||
| }} | |||
| <div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; ">{{Misplaced Pages:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Puerto Rico articles by quality statistics}}</div> | |||
| If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below. | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Gente, I need your honest reassessment. At the suggestion of ], I've almost given birth to a Betances clone... The article had a B rating before I put my hands on it. I want to improve the article's rating to Featured Article status, and have since submitted it to WikiProject peer review. However, since you're part of the concerned party, so to speak, feel free to fire away(!) Methinks it deserves an A, but I'm biased. ''Wink, wink...'' Of course, if this paragraph doesn't belong here, move it and let me know where it belongs. ] 20:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Great job! I believe that it would do great in peer review, but you know me, what do I know? (smile). ] 20:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Gracias, but what about Puerto Rico WikiProject ratings? I'd suggest High or Top importance... as quality goes, I've done my research for about an hour or so, and it probably deserves an GA, maybe even an A, but not Featured status yet. My wife is about to strangle me, all I do is talk about the guy since Thursday... ;-) ] 21:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Not Top-importance, that is reserved for core topics (i.e. ]); maybe High, due to his historical and internationally renowned impact and influences. But GOOD WORK, by the way. The article is really good. As Tony says, throw it through Peer Review; after that, I think it'll easily pass as a Good Article, except for a few touches here and there. - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">] <sup><small>(]|]|])</small></sup></span> 21:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Therefore, the ratings and importance would be...?(bites nails nervously) ] 20:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * I'd say High importance, this person is a notable historic subject which many students research from. As for quality, just put it as B to be conservative, but pass it through the GAN process. - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">] <sup><small>(]|]|])</small></sup></span> 12:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 02:09, 7 January 2013
Redirect to: