Talk:Cooper Review - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DeadbeefBot (talk | contribs) at 08:42, 20 December 2023 (merged OTD/ITN/DYK templates to {{article history}} (BRFA) (in trial)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:42, 20 December 2023 by DeadbeefBot (talk | contribs) (merged OTD/ITN/DYK templates to {{article history}} (BRFA) (in trial))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Cooper Review 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
Date	Process	Result
October 11, 2013	Good article nominee	Not listed
December 18, 2013	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 19, 2013.The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that The Cooper Review, a weekly newspaper published in Cooper, Texas, was founded in 1880, making it the oldest business in its county?

Current status: Former good article nominee

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Newspapers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dallas-Fort Worth (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dallas-Fort WorthWikipedia:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthTemplate:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthDallas-Fort Worth

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Texas Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 October 2013. The result of the discussion was keep.

Image

Can you get something a bit higher res? While fair use images should be low resolution, they needn't be blurry. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Cooper Review/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) 16:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The issue of the names in the second paragraph of the history section is a little confusing. I wonder if it could be tweaked to make it clearer. It looks as though it's called the Cooper Review, not The Cooper Review, according to its website and secondary sources, e.g. The image of the front page also doesn't show a "the," so I would remove that and move the title. I would move into either the lead or the top of the history section (or both) that it's the oldest surviving business in Delta County, along with the J.F. Henslee Hardware Store.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article goes into quite a bit of detail about minor issues, e.g. "Originally after purchasing the paper, hired Roger Palmer its publisher, editor, and advertising director. However, Jim Butler replaced Palmer as the publisher and advertising director." At the same time there isn't much about the newspaper: any interesting stories it has covered, difficulties, disputes, reputation, role in local life? It would be worth looking around to see what other sources there are. The newspaper itself can be used as a primary source within reason.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Short and sweet is sometimes appropriate, but I wonder if this is missing some information. Putting it on hold to give the author/nominator, Awardgive, some more time to check. There has been no response from the nominator, so I'm not able to pass the article.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cooper Review. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131212121649/http://texaspress.com/index.php/services/newspaper-search to http://www.texaspress.com/index.php/services/newspaper-search

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Categories: