Talk:Elizabeth Timothy

Possible Sources

I can't get ahold of it on my current connection, but this article looks promising as a source here. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Question as to intent

Does the line , "The South Carolina Gazette newspaper of 4 January 1739 is a work contributed to Timothy:", mean to use the word "attributed" rather than "contributed"? --Khe Sanh vet (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Corrected!--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Elizabeth Timothy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202230755/http://www.knowitall.org/legacy/laureates/Elizabeth%20Timothy.html to http://www.knowitall.org/legacy/laureates/Elizabeth%20Timothy.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131214154506/http://www.halseymap.com/Flash/window.asp?HMID=37 to http://www.halseymap.com/flash/window.asp?HMID=37

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elizabeth Timothy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924014312/http://www.fofweb.com/History/HistRefMain.asp?iPin=WBL120&SID=2&DatabaseName=American+History+Online&InputText=%22Elizabeth+Timothy%22&SearchStyle=&dTitle=Timothy%2C+Elizabeth&TabRecordType=Biography&BioCountPass=1&SubCountPass=0&DocCountPass=0&ImgCountPass=0&MapCountPass=0&FedCountPass=&MedCountPass=0&NewsCountPass=0&RecPosition=1&AmericanData=Set&WomenData=&AFHCData=&IndianData=&WorldData=&AncientData=&GovernmentData= to http://www.fofweb.com/History/HistRefMain.asp?iPin=WBL120&SID=2&DatabaseName=American+History+Online&InputText=%22Elizabeth+Timothy%22&SearchStyle=&dTitle=Timothy%2C+Elizabeth&TabRecordType=Biography&BioCountPass=1&SubCountPass=0&DocCountPass=0&ImgCountPass=0&MapCountPass=0&FedCountPass=&MedCountPass=0&NewsCountPass=0&RecPosition=1&AmericanData=Set&WomenData=&AFHCData=&IndianData=&WorldData=&AncientData=&GovernmentData=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Elizabeth Timothy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 05:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. I hope to complete the review over the next couple of days. Ganesha811 (talk) 05:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this on, Ganesha811. Doug is recovering from a broken shoulder and probably won't be able to respond for a while. I will be available to address your points in the meantime. — The Most Comfortable Chair 19:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• @The Most Comfortable Chair: Thanks for responding to this. See User_talk:Ganesha811#Elizabeth_Timothy_GAN. Ganesha811 will probably be reviewing other printer/publishers as well and just be backlogging all of them to when I can respond. I should be able to start responding to reviews in the first week of Janurary of 2022. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• @The Most Comfortable Chair:, @Doug Coldwell: this article is just about ready to pass (see two minor points below). Happy to pass now after these quick changes, or wait till January as previously discussed. Happy Christmas! Ganesha811 (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits and the review. I have implemented your suggestions. Happy Christmas to you too! — The Most Comfortable Chair 05:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

This article passes! Congrats to anyone who worked on it - I'll do the needful now. Ganesha811 (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	As is my usual procedure, I've gone through and made the prose tweaks I'd advise myself, to save us both time. However, if there are any changes you don't like, just let me know so we can discuss it. Other than that, the prose is ready to pass in my view. Pass - any further discussion can be worked out on talk.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Well-referenced. Pass.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Sources are reliable all-around. Pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No research from primary sources, secondary and no uncited sentences. Pass. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found by Earwig or manual spot check. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Still to check. Nothing else significant found. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No excessive detail or "fancruft". Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No NPOV issues. Pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No significant changes since August. No edit wars. Pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images appear good. Pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Some minor caption improvements: "The Timothy print shop", "Reenactment" rather than "Likeness", "Museum recreation of two presses with drying newspapers." Issues addressed. Pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment

This article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)