Talk:John Work House and Mill Site

message: I wasn't sure about adding it either, but it is on the National Register.  But don't worry about filling out the category; I've been doing a good job of that myself.--Bedford 06:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historic buildings of Louisville

message: External links are more extraneous to the article than references; therefore, they need to come after references.  Why should this article be the exception when the vast majority of other articles put references first?  Wikilawyering with guidelines is not as compelling as common sense. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Per the quick-fail criteria of the GA nominations process, any article with cleanup or expansion banners must be failed without an in-depth review. Also note that the nomination was not completed correctly, as a nomination was made on the candidates page, but the appropriate template was not placed here. Please remedy these before renominating. If you feel this decision was in error, you may request a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky Talk 06:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, did not realize that banner was still there.  There isn't that much more about its time as a Scout Camp that's really needed.  I didn't have time yet to put the GA nominee on talk page.  I am now requesting reassigning.--Bedford 06:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if you understand what reassessment means. It means you think my decision was completely wrong and that it needs to be reversed. This is pretty much impossible, as the article wasn't actually reviewed. If you've gotten rid of any quick-fail issues, then the thing to do is renominate and wait for the usual full review. VanTucky Talk 06:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, it's my first time doing this.  Anyways, I renominated it.--Bedford 06:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to be sorry. You aren't born with a knowledge of GA bureaucracy! Best of luck, VanTucky Talk 06:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick-failed Good Article nomination

message: I just want it to be let know to whoever reviews this for GA that I plan to take pictures within the property on Tuesday, so if it would fail due to lack of pictures, put it on hold instead.--Bedford (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note to GA assessor

message: The article does not meet the GA criteria at the present time, as there are still numerous issues with it.
:GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#:: 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#:: 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#:: 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: 
#It is stable.
#: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): 
#:: 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
#:: </div>
The prose could use a good copyedit, fixing things like run-on sentences (e.g. the first sentence in 'mill days'), as well as punctuation issues. There are also numerous manual of style issues; full dates should be wikilinked, several place names (like Louisville) should be linked to articles for added context, etc. Reference citations need full citation information, instead of just a URL (e.g. please put author, title, publisher, date of publication, date URL was retrieved, so that if the URL ever disappears or is inaccessible, the reference can still be used to track down the source and verify it offline). The first two items in the 'legends' section have no citations, and could be construed as original research. The 'Work/Faris Cemetery' section and 'Today' are very short. There's just not a whole lot of detail here, and, particularly 'today', could be expanded with more information.
Also, with regard to section order, 'references' should appear before 'external links', not after.
The link to 'John Work House and Mill Site is at coordinates 38°28′60″N 85°37′36″W﻿ / ﻿38.4833, -85.6267' seems redundant -- the link to the coordinates is at the very top of the page. Why is it linked again in external links?
Hope this helps improve the article. Good luck! Dr. Cash (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on John Work House and Mill Site. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gbpnews.com/news/l013101.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060528080512/http://www.sccadets.org/inthenews/inthenews.htm to http://www.sccadets.org/inthenews/inthenews.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified