Talk:Encyclopedia of Chicago
 | Encyclopedia of Chicago 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 so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 4, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the electronic version of the Encyclopedia of Chicago was the second extensive Internet encyclopedia dedicated to the history of a U.S. city? | |||||||||
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review edit
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Encyclopedia of Chicago/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: maclean (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- GA review (see Wikipedia:What is a good article?)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- Notes
- 1 image: Fair use with good rationale.
- Good use of {{Inflation}}
- I did some copyedits to clear up some of the language
- I made all the 4-digit number consistent per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Delimiting (grouping of digits)
- There is no critical reception. The article mentions that reviews of the book were done (ie. WSJ) but doesn't say what the reviewers wrote about it.
- The WSJ link does not actually contain the review. I don't have other online access to it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have attempted to cobble together a critical review.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Encyclopedia of Chicago. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081206164225/http://www.newberry.org:80/scholl/encyclopedia.html to http://www.newberry.org/scholl/encyclopedia.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)