Talk:Astronomical Observatory (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign)/GA1
GA Reassessment edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA Sweeps: Kept edit
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there is an issue that needs to be addressed. I have already made minor corrections to the article, but have included an issue below that I believe need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA.
- In the lead, it mentions the observatory's addition as a National Register of Historic Places and U.S. National Historic Landmark. However, this is not mentioned in the article. The history ends at the 1960s for the architecture and its discoveries. The article needs expansion detailing its history in the 1970s-2000s plus mention the National Register of Historic Places/U.S. National Historic Landmark as described in the lead.
This article covers the topic well and if the above issue is addressed, I believe the article can remain a GA. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- This was one of my first Good Articles. I'll see what I can do, the NRHP nom form and a few other sources may help. I'll check it out. I'll probably also reorganize the article a bit too. I may need a bit of time because I only have internet access at work for the time being.--IvoShandor (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- No worries, there's no big hurry. It looks like there are still a few more of your GAs left to review on the Sweeps list, so maybe you can take a look at the ones left and revisit those before they are reviewed. I think this is one of the first times I put one of your articles on hold, since usually they always meet the criteria. Anyway, let me know when you're done and I'll take a look. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've already done a few things, added a little bit. I am going to try to get hold of the NHL nomination, because it's not online yet it may take some time (the NPS is slow, notoriously so), but it's ok if that means it will be delisted for the time being. I have a free weekend so I'll see what my tiny local library has to offer, and if it's a no-go there, I'll head over to my alma mater and investigate their massive amounts of texts and the whatnots and what have yous and such. My current sources don't seem to go beyond 1996 or so.--IvoShandor (talk) 07:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Let me know what you find. There's no reason to delist it with the current layout and recent additions, but I want to leave it on hold until your new additions are added. I think one of my longest holds was for over a month, so don't worry if you need a few weeks to get the details. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've already done a few things, added a little bit. I am going to try to get hold of the NHL nomination, because it's not online yet it may take some time (the NPS is slow, notoriously so), but it's ok if that means it will be delisted for the time being. I have a free weekend so I'll see what my tiny local library has to offer, and if it's a no-go there, I'll head over to my alma mater and investigate their massive amounts of texts and the whatnots and what have yous and such. My current sources don't seem to go beyond 1996 or so.--IvoShandor (talk) 07:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- No worries, there's no big hurry. It looks like there are still a few more of your GAs left to review on the Sweeps list, so maybe you can take a look at the ones left and revisit those before they are reviewed. I think this is one of the first times I put one of your articles on hold, since usually they always meet the criteria. Anyway, let me know when you're done and I'll take a look. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- I am not sure I will be able to find any additional information. If you could take a look at the article and let me know if it's up to snuff that'd be great. If you have the time, and it's not up to the criteria, could you please let me know where it is still lacking. Thanks.--IvoShandor (talk) 04:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- If nothing more is available then the article meets the criteria. You addressed the issue I raised above and tried to find additional sources. You can always pursue this in the future, but as it stands now, I believe the article meets the criteria and should remain a GA. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Right on, well I trust your judgment on this stuff. I will continue the search. The few materials I could find (but don't yet have access to) aren't that promising as far as new information, they were all published before 1974.--IvoShandor (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, just keep an eye out. Something may turn up as some newspaper/magazine randomly writes an article on it, perhaps for some anniversary. Hopefully they don't use Wikipedia for their research for the article though or you may not have too much to go off of! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Right on, well I trust your judgment on this stuff. I will continue the search. The few materials I could find (but don't yet have access to) aren't that promising as far as new information, they were all published before 1974.--IvoShandor (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- If nothing more is available then the article meets the criteria. You addressed the issue I raised above and tried to find additional sources. You can always pursue this in the future, but as it stands now, I believe the article meets the criteria and should remain a GA. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)