Talk:The Absent-Minded Beggar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article The Absent-Minded Beggar has been listed as one of the Language and literature 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.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on June 6, 2006.
July 15, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
Books Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

The Absent-Minded Beggar is part of WikiProject Poetry, a WikiProject related to Poetry.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan, organized to complete and improve the Gilbert and Sullivan related articles on Wikipedia. You can participate by editing the article attached to this page or by visiting the project page, to join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale for the G&S Project.

You may comment here on the rating or to explain the strengths and weaknesses of the article.


[edit] GA issues

This article is listed as a GA, but it has no lead section. GA articles are supposed to meet WP:LEAD. I'll hold off on delisting until someone can take a look and perhaps fix the problem. Mike Christie (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I prettied it up a bit. Any other comments? -- Ssilvers 13:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Dang, that was quick. Nice work. That certainly looks nicer, and addresses my concern. If I get a chance I'll take a look and come up with other questions; if not, it's because I'm impressed. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)