Talk:Sphinx Head: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:38, 24 May 2008 editGeometry guy (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users31,032 edits Replace GAN by GA nominee using AWB ← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:19, 11 June 2008 edit undoGosgood (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users2,456 edits Question if the New York Times quote -- an old, brief reference -- really supports a rather broad endorsement in the lead.Next edit →
Line 9:		Line 9:

	: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)		: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)

			== New York Times reference ==
			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)

Revision as of 14:19, 11 June 2008

Sphinx Head is currently a good article nominee. Nominated by an unspecified nominator at 16:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Please use the |page= parameter to specify the number of the next free GAN review page, or use {{subst:GAN}} instead to find the next free page automatically.

This article is not categorized by subtopic. Please edit the |subtopic= parameter on this talk page to include one. For a list of subtopics, please see Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations.

Template:Project Cornell

Secret Societies (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Secret Societies, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Secret SocietiesWikipedia:WikiProject Secret SocietiesTemplate:WikiProject Secret SocietiesSecret Societies

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 May 2006. The result of the discussion was delete.

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

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. Cornell1890 (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

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.--Vidkun (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

New York Times reference

Can a single remark in a 541 word article appearing over 79 years ago in the New York Times 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 Manual of Style Embedded list 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. Gosgood (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Categories: