Jump to content

Talk:Princely Abbey of Stavelot-Malmedy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articlePrincely Abbey of Stavelot-Malmedy has been listed as one of the History 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
August 2, 2009Good article nomineeListed
January 5, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

April 2009

[edit]

What is the connection to Stavelot? isn't it the same or at least related? Just curious as I'm not familiar with the place. -- Alexf(talk) 19:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Principality was the entity governing Stavelot (and Malmedy) from the Middle Ages until the French Revolutionary Wars. So yeah, same place :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 14:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Principality of Stavelot-Malmedy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


Starting GA review. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail criteria assessment

  1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
  2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
  3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
  4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
  5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

No problems found when checking against quick fail criteria, starting substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    • I made some minor copy-edits.
    b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    • No dead links.
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its scope.
    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:

Featured article candidacy

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Principality of Stavelot-Malmedy/archive1.
Please make any pertinent comments there.

coat of arms

[edit]

coat of arms: http://www.goeast.be/de/business/standort/gemeinden/malmedy/history.html http://www.kreiter.info/familie/docs/reiseberichte/malmedy/malmedy.htm http://geo.uni.lu/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1477&Itemid=306 --88.207.213.162 (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup tags from May 2016

[edit]

@Sigehelmus: You added cleanup tags {{Cleanup reorganize}} and {{Copy edit}} to this article in May. Are there specific problems you would like to see addressed? I can't see anything wrong with either of these aspects myself, but I've done a significant amount of the work on this article, so I am willing to believe I'm overlooking something.

If you could comment here with what the specific problems you've identified are, then I can make some effort towards addressing them. Thanks! :) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 14:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]