Talk:Lusty Lady

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Lusty Lady was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}

[edit] Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Lusty Lady has failed, for the following reason:

The article is close, but misses some of the criteria for a good article. Bugmuncher 06:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;

ALMOST - could use some tweaks here and there. It needs to flow a bit better.

(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);

MOSTLY, but the lead doesn't addresss the scope of the article.

(c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style;

AS FAR AS I CAN TELL - I am no style expert yet. (My specialty is leads...)

(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.

YES

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;

YES

(b) the citation of its sources is essential, and the use of inline citations is desirable, although not mandatory;

The newspaper articles should include bylines, and all web sources cited should include retrieval dates. see WP:CITE

(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;

YES

(d) it contains no elements of original research.

YES

3. It is broad in its coverage, addressing all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);.

I think so

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;

YES

(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.

YES

5. It is stable, i.e., it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars.

I did not check this.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:

(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;

NEEDS BETTER CAPTION - See WP:CAPTION for advice.

(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.

This is pretty close! Maybe I'll contribute some changes myself tomorrow after I wake up...Bugmuncher 06:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Millennium

The reference to Lusty Lady in the TV series pilot Millennium was deleted as "pointless trivia". The section header, "Miscellaneous", was indeed ill-conceived, and I changed it to "Popular culture references". Other than that, I don't see how removal of this fact helps our readers: we should let the judgement of whether this trivia is pointless or not confidently up to them. The trivia lacked a source, so I added one. AxelBoldt 03:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)