Misplaced Pages

Talk:History of the Encyclopædia Britannica: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:10, 10 October 2011 editGimmeBot (talk | contribs)Bots75,273 editsm Bot updating {{ArticleHistory}}← Previous edit Revision as of 05:42, 15 March 2014 edit undo154.5.189.230 (talk) →Encyclopeadia Britannica FilmsNext edit →
Line 25: Line 25:


{{Talk:History of the Encyclopædia Britannica/GA1}} {{Talk:History of the Encyclopædia Britannica/GA1}}

{{Bquote| we are back to a world with limited time.|x|x|CameronSkirving|'']'', 2014-03-14, sc. 10:40 }}

<nonw>

Revision as of 05:42, 15 March 2014

Former good article nomineeHistory of the Encyclopædia Britannica was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 8, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
WikiProject iconChicago B‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on December 6, 2008 and December 6, 2009.

Quote template?

Hi all, I've been experimenting with {{cquote}} and {{bquote}} for this article; which one looks better? Should we also try {{rquote}}? Open to any and all ideas, Willow 21:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


Fine article

Well done on this. I know it was transferred from the main article, so there were more involved. It's a good read and balances heavy facts with curious details and quotes, and has a goldilocks balance on use of citations. I made a few small edits (forgot to sign in). Too tired to have a look at the quote templates.--Shtove 19:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopeadia Britannica Films

I don't understand why in either article (the main one or this one), there is no mention of the filmmaking arm of this company. I greatly enjoyed watching the films they made when I was in school and most everyone who was in any grammar school up to the 1990's certainly viewed several of them at some point. If someone doesn't add something, I will. 24.177.168.130 (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:History of the Encyclopædia Britannica/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article does not meet the good article criteria and has too many issues. It has therefore failed its nomination. Issues include but are not limited to:

  • Insufficient references, especially for quotes
    • "Historical context"
    • "1st edition"
    • "1st edition"
    • "3rd edition"
    • "4th edition"
    • etc.

Once these issues have been resolved, feel free to renominate the article. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

we are back to a world with limited time.

— twitter.com , 2014-03-14, sc. 10:40 , in x, x, CameronSkirving

<nonw>

Categories: