Talk:New England Quarter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	New England Quarter was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 16, 2007 Good article nominee Listed October 29, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted Current Status: Delisted good article

An entry from New England Quarter appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 17 February 2007.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brighton, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource about Brighton and Hove. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page or the Portal.
Brighton To do: Shortcut: WP:BAH Project Finish Project Page Urgent Recruit new members Urgent Articles Add talk page template to articles Identify further articles relating to the project Images Add more images to articles

[edit] GA Passed

This is a very pretty article with lots of nice pictures. It is well written, cites reliable sources, and provides broad (actually quite comprehensive) coverage of the topic. I've only got a few issues with citations for some statements, especially in the criticism and controversy section. I've tagged all the problematic citations with "citation needed." Additionally, in one place it wasn't entirely clear what council the article was referring to, I've tagged that with "clarify." That's it and it's GA.

Suggestions for improvements: make sure all the reference links point to the exact page that sources your material instead of pointing to the home page. Also, please remove those "Articles without sources" and "Articles needing clarification" categories at the bottom of the article after adding the citations and replace them with some new useful categories or lists. The lead is also quite nice and succinct. --Meowist 22:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and advice, Meowist. I have addressed the points mentioned, providing citations for all but one of the tagged sentences and removing the other as I couldn't find a source. Similarly, I have clarified which council it was (B&H Council, before it became B&H *City* Council in 2000). I found a couple of examples of links not pointing to exact pages, but if there are any more, I'll try to sort those out soon as well. Hassocks5489 20:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm pleased with the changes and am passing this article. Meow. --Meowist 21:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

• The lead does not adequately summarise the article.
• External links only belong in the external links section
• Image captions should be succinct.
• References should state the author, publisher, publishing date and access date, if known.
• Only headings and the lead should contain bold text.
• Every statement that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs an inline citation.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GA/R). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Regards, Epbr123 09:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I intend to make all of these changes as far as possible (although I may need help with identifying any extra citations needed, in case I miss any), but sadly I have no time at the moment; so I suppose it will have to be delisted and renominated later. I'm not moaning :), but it's slightly disappointing seeing a recent successful nomination being downgraded when no significant changes have been made in the interim; but I have read the discussion relating to the major review being undertaken of all Good Articles and fully understand why this needs to happen. Anyway, I expect I'll have time in a week or two to make the changes. Hassocks5489 11:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid the article has now been delisted. Good luck with the eventual renomination. Epbr123 23:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)