Talk:Great Society/Draft: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Roger A. Lohmann No edit summary |
imported>Hayford Peirce (→Nominate For Approval: take another look at Memory and tell me that you *truly* believe this article should be approved) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
:::Because of the July 4 holiday in the U.S. and (more importantly) the fact that this nomination isn't showing up on the History: To Approve page, I've extended the nomination period a few more days. | :::Because of the July 4 holiday in the U.S. and (more importantly) the fact that this nomination isn't showing up on the History: To Approve page, I've extended the nomination period a few more days. | ||
[[User:Roger Lohmann|Roger Lohmann]] 19:43, 1 July 2008 (CDT) | [[User:Roger Lohmann|Roger Lohmann]] 19:43, 1 July 2008 (CDT) | ||
::::I'm just a lowly reader, like dust beneath the chariot wheels of the lofty Editors, but I certainly wouldn't nominate any article for approval that has such a sloppily written and badly edited "Memory" section, which is also loaded with one-sided declarations of opinion that need to be qualified and/or sourced and cited. If the rest of the article is as "good" as this one section, then it absolutely should not be approved. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 21:09, 1 July 2008 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 20:09, 1 July 2008
Richard, will you indicate the source of the article. I assume you wrote it, originally for here? Nancy Sculerati 02:05, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
- no this is from Wiki; sorry if i didn't check that box. Richard Jensen 02:11, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
Is it something that you wrote for Wikipedia? Are you expanding it here? I love all your articles and I respect you tremendously, it's really great to see the History Workgroup taken in hand, I'm just wondering where all these full blown articles are coming from, and what your plans are for approval. Nancy Sculerati 06:48, 26 April 2007 (CDT) (aka Mother Hen)
- I wrote part of it for Wiki. I did LOTS of articles for them. in this case I did less than 50%. Every article I bring over gets revised by me immediately. I usually drop low quality stuff and beef up the bibliog, and do a little rewriting. I am only bringing in articles that I had a major hand in writing. Richard Jensen 07:50, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
- I revised and added new material, and a reading list, and dropped useless wikipedia links.Richard Jensen 13:29, 27 June 2008 (CDT)
- I wrote part of it for Wiki. I did LOTS of articles for them. in this case I did less than 50%. Every article I bring over gets revised by me immediately. I usually drop low quality stuff and beef up the bibliog, and do a little rewriting. I am only bringing in articles that I had a major hand in writing. Richard Jensen 07:50, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
Nominate For Approval
- Because of the July 4 holiday in the U.S. and (more importantly) the fact that this nomination isn't showing up on the History: To Approve page, I've extended the nomination period a few more days.
Roger Lohmann 19:43, 1 July 2008 (CDT)
- I'm just a lowly reader, like dust beneath the chariot wheels of the lofty Editors, but I certainly wouldn't nominate any article for approval that has such a sloppily written and badly edited "Memory" section, which is also loaded with one-sided declarations of opinion that need to be qualified and/or sourced and cited. If the rest of the article is as "good" as this one section, then it absolutely should not be approved. Hayford Peirce 21:09, 1 July 2008 (CDT)