Talk:Île de Croÿ

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

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles This article was accepted from this draft on 15 June 2022 by reviewer Bkissin (talk · contribs). France Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Islands This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands 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.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands articles Overseas France Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Overseas France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Overseas France 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.Overseas FranceWikipedia:WikiProject Overseas FranceTemplate:WikiProject Overseas FranceOverseas France articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 August 2024. The result of the discussion was keep.

I think that the writer of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Germany_FranceUK_Australia_Russia_Latvia, did a very good job at writing this article. 02:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)02:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)02:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)02:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi hi hiii ^_^ could someone with access to this source please add more info from it to this section of the article ? thanks A Socialist Trans Girl 00:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making this to keep track of the progress towards the article meeting the good article criteria.

A good article is:

1. Well-written:

a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

I believe that it is clear, concise, understandable to an appropriately broad audience. The spelling and grammar is correct to my knowledge, and i'm pretty sure it complies with all those MOS things.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

b. 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);

c. it contains no original research; and

d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

a. yep no more [citation needed] is in the article b. they are, yeah c. there's no OR, all is cited d. there also is no copyright or plagarism

3. Broad in its coverage:

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

a. Pretty sure it encompasses the entire scope b. I don't believe it goes off topic, nor goes into unneccssary detail

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Not much differing viewpoints in the first place, so I guess?

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

nah, it's not very contentious

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

There's the map of it, I don't think there's any usable images (or even just images) of it, so yeah

im confused, does this article actually meet the criteria?? A Socialist Trans Girl 01:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Silverlock Studies @GraziePrego @DeadlyRampage26 tagging yall as you may wanna comment/be able to, based on intrest in improving the article A Socialist Trans Girl 02:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hewwo :3 I think the article is in a much better state- I think the sourcing is a problem for meeting Good Article status though. Do we know that each of the websites cited is a reliable source? GraziePrego (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

omg haiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii :3 ฅ(＾・ω・＾ฅ) (˶◕‿◕˶✿)

With regards to the reliability of the sources, I'll list them first so they can be evaluated.

1. Geoview.info
2. cambridge
3. Smithsonian
4. ushistory.org
5. geology.com
6. weathercrave.com
7. birdlife international

Are any of these not reliable? they seem reliable to me A Socialist Trans Girl 05:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]