Talk:National Capital Freenet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the National Capital Freenet article.
Article policies


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ottawa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ottawa articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
National Capital Freenet was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: March 11, 2008

.

[edit] User Box

I have created a user box for Wikipedia editors who connect through NCF. To put this box on your user page just copy the code below:

Code Result What links here
{{User:Ahunt/NCF}}
NCF This user's internet service provider is National Capital Freenet
Transclusions

- Ahunt (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:


This article is nowhere near GA. It needs copyediting, (spelling and grammar errors, which $ etc), does not conform to MOS or GA guidelines, and is not properly referenced to independent sources. Most refs are to the company site or are written by ex-employees. The TV clips referenced are to claims made by company managers. Not actually that far from being spam. There is no point giving this time for improvement, it needs rewriting from scratch, following GA/MoS guidelines, and with independent verifiable references. Jimfbleak (talk) 08:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Jim: Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful critique of this article. Obviously you have found flaws with it that other editors working on this article have missed. I note that you mention things like spelling mistakes - I guess my spelling skills are lacking, because I haven't been able to identify any, although I did find, and correct, one grammar error. Perhaps you can point them out, or better yet correct them? You do mention that the article doesn't comply with the MOS, but it does seem to comply with some aspects of it, but perhaps not others? Perhaps you can be a bit more specific in that regard so it can be fixed? You are quite correct in that it needs more independent sources. I will see if I can locate some more. For one, I am glad to have someone of your capabilities helping out in fixing this article and look forward to your participation in making it better. - Ahunt (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)