Talk:Palanga Amber Museum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Palanga Amber Museum 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: 2007-03-28

Palanga Amber Museum is a current good article nominee. If you have not contributed significantly to this article, feel free to evaluate it according to the good article criteria and then pass or fail the article as outlined on the candidates page. Nomination date: 2007-03-29

	Palanga Amber Museum is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lithuania on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our to-do list. On the project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
B	This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Comments	M.K. 15:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

An entry from Palanga Amber Museum appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 23 March 2007.

[edit] Failed GA Nomination

This article has failed GA nomination primarily on criteria 2(b) for insufficient references. There are large parts of all three sections that need to be referenced. Specifically, the historical aspects of the article and the 'most photographed' claim need citations. A much smaller issue is a couple of statements that are subjective evaluations. An example of this is the "most unusual in the exhibit" because this is a subjective statement. It should either be removed or quoted from a particular source. Otherwise, the article is interesting and readable and is close to GA status.-Dekkanar 19:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello! You failed Palanga Amber Museum as GA and listed problems, I addressed them, particularly - introduced additional sources, reworded speculated sentences. Could you please take a look now - are you concerns solved by these adjustments. If so, do I need to renominated article again? Cheers, M.K. 09:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the article with the changes that have been made, I agree that my concernes have been mostly addressed. I still think that there is room for improvement and more references, but I think that this probably meets the GA standards now. Renominating the article is your next step now. Good luck on future reviews! Dekkanar 13:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I made further improvements - added more refs, formated text and references. I hope that new GA review this article would pass :) M.K. 19:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)