Talk:Kenneth M. Taylor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Kenneth M. Taylor has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
February 19, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Military work group.

	Oklahoma Portal This article is part of WikiProject Oklahoma, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Oklahoma.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article is of low-importance within WikiProject Oklahoma.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Additional information: GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. Low This article has been rated as Low-Importance on the assessment scale.

[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of February 19, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

A very will written article, superbly referenced and a fun read. I flushed it out with a few categories but otherwise it is an example of some of the best work I've seen from the WPMILHIST task force. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— MrPrada (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article and adding the cats. Good work to those that started the article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)