Talk:Frank Tudor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Flag
Portal
 Frank Tudor is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments
This article is part of WikiProject Organized Labour, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Organized Labour. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Organized Labour Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

[edit] Images

Who removed images without discussion and why? Timeshift (talk) 05:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, that was my bad. I was rewriting the article in my sandbox so that this article wouldn't look like a sandbox and neglected to re-add the images. I will return at least one - a second may not fit. Littleteddy (roar!) 10:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GAN

A short note about length: Tudor didn't have a very eventful or lengthly life. This is the reason for the short article. Littleteddy (roar!) 11:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Informal feedback: I took a look at the article, and am not hopeful that it will pass. Two things stand out to me: first, the lead section is not nearly thorough enough; it should give a pretty good overview of the subject, and clearly identify why he is noteworthy. Second, the article is essentially all based on one source. (Only a couple small details are cited to others.) Though this is not technically a disqualifier for GA, it seems likely to me that there are other sources available. I would prefer to see an article have a number of independent sources before a GA nom. Hope this is helpful, looks like an interesting guy! -Pete (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)