Talk:History of Milton Keynes/Archive 1

message: The web citations all need to be changed to the long form style, which I will work on.  The target date for FA in at least the United Kingdom portal is 23 January 2007, the 40th anniversary of the foundation of the modern Milton Keynes in 1967.  Help and advice welcome - might make Wikipedia FA in 2017!  --Concrete Cowboy 22:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All complete. --Concrete Cowboy 17:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Invitation for Peer Review

message: I have pasted in the material that is currently on the main Milton Keynes article, mainly because of useful material added by user:Goldenlane.  I plan to reduce the main article content to a summary. --Concrete Cowboy 18:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MKDC history added 13/01 

message: *Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 23:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helpful crits left at Peer Review page - copied here for convenience. 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
*There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 2km, use 2 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 2 km.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
*As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
*Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, GazMan7 08:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As should be obvious, all of the above fixed by end of March, except no relevant infobox. --Concrete Cowboy 19:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto peer review 

message: Milton Keynes Development Corporation: designing a city for 200,000 people is uncited. Alientraveller 18:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading through the section again, there is a lot of opinion in it.  These opinions are what we have to source independently. --Concrete Cowboy 12:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, I've put this in. Regards, SeveroTC 14:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA fail

message: Congratulations, this article has passed GA review. Although most critera were easily met, I felt that the article could only barely be described as well written (critera 1a). It wasn't poorly enough written to fail its GA status, but it was the article's weakest point at time of review. There were a few spelling and grammatical errors, and also paragraphs in places of just a single sentence. There was also some slightly awkward phrasing in places. Although I have passed this article as GA, I would recommend that the article was thoroughly copyedit - ideally more than one person will need to run through the entire article checking and correcting phrasing and spelling - personally I find this easiest to do if the copyeditor is not one of the article's authors and if I have a print-out of the article in front of me - other people catch awkward phrasing that might seem ok to the author. If assitance is required with copyediting, then wikipedia's league of copyeditors might be able to assist, though they are overworked and a bored spouse with a red pen and a printout of the page is often just as good a copyeditor! ;-) Aside from this it is clear that a lot of work has gone into the article and that the issues raised in the original GA review have all been met satisfactorily. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Pass