Talk:Eliab Harvey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleEliab Harvey has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 19, 2008Good article nomineeListed

Links[edit]

Removed these from the page as they are not considered reliable enough. They do however provide some interesting information.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

See if something can be done about all the red links. Overall, a good article. -- Secisek (talk) 06:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually all the red links are for warships and MPs who are automatically notable, so the redlinks will eventually change to blue. Of course as WP:Anglicanism members, it's probably up to us to work out if the church is sufficiently notable... Incidentally, whilst it is indeed frowened upon to use flags for places of birth and death (at least partly because, there are questions of self-identification and historical accuracy) there does seem to be a consensus to use them for Allegiance and Branch as these are well-defined matters of fact. David Underdown (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did my part. The chuch article is stubbed in. -- Secisek (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]