Talk:Wings for My Flight

Wings for My Flight 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.

Article milestones Date Process Result October 21, 2015 Good article nominee Listed May 6, 2016 Peer review Reviewed June 18, 2016 Featured article candidate Not promoted A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 6, 2015. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that by 1975, the year Marcy Cottrell Houle's book Wings for My Flight documents, only 324 pairs of peregrine falcons resided in the United States? Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books Birds Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Birds To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more) Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images ). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles. More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo. Women scientists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Wings for My Flight/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 00:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 19, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

1. Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
2. NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
3. Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the
   paying it forward
   . Thank you !
4. Article is quite well-written and constructed, overall.
5. Per
   WP:LEAD
   , please expand the lede intro sect so it can function fully as a standalone summary of the entire articles contents. A two-sentence-long first paragraph is a bit too short. Perhaps a bit more Background info in that paragraph, grounding the reader with some additional intro context.
6. Per
   WP:LEADCITE
   , the quoted info in the lede is repeated and cited verbatim later in the article body text. It is non-contentious and non-controversial, so in-line citations not needed in lede for this article at this time.
7. Per Copyvio Detector - https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Wings+for+My+Flight&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1 - showing one problem source - please try to get the quoted amount down below 30 percent confidence, via trimming/removing, and/or paraphrasing quotes.
8. Summary - would look better retitled as Content summary.
9. Publication - would look better retitled as Publication history.
10. Reception - could have a teensy weensy bit more background info on what the Oregon Book Award is for and by what organization it's awarded, and same for Christopher Award.
11. Consider adding a See also sect, if readers want to learn more on topic but stay on Wikipedia to do so.
12. Think about adding a Further reading sect, either to highlight again the best secondary sources used as citations, or to recommend to the reader additional useful secondary sources on the same topic.

2. Verifiable?: Checklinks tool - http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Wings_for_My_Flight - shows at least four (4) problem links - these are any links without a "0" or "200" rating, or even a "200" rating but with a comment next to it on the side. Please archive these, and seeing as how it's a small article, please archive all links with the

WP:CIT

template fields archiveurl and archivedate.

3. Broad in coverage?: The article covers a broad scope, with good organizational structure for topics including Background, Summary, Publication, and Reception.

4. Neutral point of view?: The material in the article is indeed presented in a neutral tone with matter-of-fact wording.

5. Stable? Upon my inspection of article edit history and article talk page history, the article is stable going back to 2012.

6. Images?: File:Wings for My Flight book cover.jpg - please ask an admin to delete the prior version of this image.

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt, I appreciate the thorough review! I will be sure to address your concerns as soon as possible. Best, Mz7 (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you, keep me posted here, below. — Cirt (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: Alright, status update. I agree with pretty much everything in the review. I fleshed out the lead a bit by summarizing some more of the Background section. I also took out the inline citations. I'm interested in what you think. I've also retitled the Summary and Publication sections accordingly. I have also archived every non-subscription-required URL with an |archiveurl= parameter except for the Library of Congress cataloging data, whose robots.txt prevents the Wayback Machine from taking archives. However, I have fairly high confidence that even if the Library of Congress changes the cataloging system, the information will remain accessible in one way or another.

Anyway, I've still got to address the problematic quotation, as well as some more background information on the awards. Still pondering what articles to include for See also and Further reading. I should have these up in the next few days. —Mz7 (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great, keep me posted, here. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:ANI. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay, let me know when you feel you've addressed everything, above. — Cirt (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: Alright, an administrator has deleted the prior version of the image, and everything is under 30% at the copyvios report. I expanded on the awards, and a see also and further reading section has been added. I think all concerns should be addressed. All the best, Mz7 (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a chance to look over suggestion number 3, above, just as a suggestion and optional only, but something for you to consider and think about, as a way to pay it forward ? — Cirt (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw and appreciate the suggestion. There's definitely a lot of nominees waiting to be reviewed, so it makes sense, and I will definitely think about it. Wings for My Flight is, actually, the first significant content creation I've done here, and it's been a good learning experience regarding what is expected by the community. I see this as something I will approach slowly to gain a bit more experience. I think I will spend some time reading through past failed and successful nominations before I hit the ground running. In any case, thank you for your quality contributions to this encyclopedia! Your respectfulness and diligence makes you an awesome Wikipedian, and

I'm obviously not alone in this sentiment. Mz7 (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, no worries, all I ask you is to read over the instructions and familiarize yourself with them and then think about it. Sure, take some time with it, especially if you've never done it before. — Cirt (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passed as GA

Passed as GA. My thanks to GA Nominator for such polite responsiveness to recommendations by GA Reviewer, above. — Cirt (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]