Talk:Manley Power

Manley Power was one of the Warfare good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 19, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
September 6, 2007	Good article reassessment	Kept
October 2, 2024	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Biography: Military

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Military history: Biography / British / European / Napoleonic era

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

Did someone miss something

It says "Lieutenant General Sir Manley Power, (this is his actual fucking name. The article really should just end here.)" in the first line. Surely that shouldn't be there?

GA Consideration

I've decided against doing a speedy fail but currently the article would not pass Criteria 2 of WP:WIAGA. You probably have a good 3 to 5 days before an editor will review the article for full GA consideration. I encourage the editors to work on incorporating in line citations into the article so that it may pass GA considerations. Agne 06:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Passing GA

I like the cites, I like how clear and crisp the information is, and while I have some concerns about the prose, I'm still passing this because of its clarity and the sourcing. I definitely suggest expanding the prose more, but as someone who graduated with a history degree, I know full well how difficult articles like this can be, and this one is good. Keep up the good work, I'll pitch in where I can. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps (Pass)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. Whilst the GA criteria have changed since this article was originally passed, I believe it still meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review.

For further improvement, we recommend that editors use the templates on WP:CITET to format references; as well as encouraging a uniform style of reference, it allows them to be parsed by bots for automated tasks like tracking down dead web-page links or ISBN conversion.

Thank you for your work and all the best, EyeSerene^TALK 18:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reddit Link

This Page was linked on Reddit.com today, so i would anticipate high traffic and many edits, as is already seen from the submissions for "most awesome name." Perhaps editing this article should be locked for a bit? --Jmcstrav talk 17:49, 15 April 2008

If a few more things happen. So far, there hasnt' been enough to merit a block IMO. --\/\/slack (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that's enough. Lock please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wslack (talk • contribs) 23:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - that bot is handy. --\/\/slack (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - wow, dude, i was looking up how to do that and saw you at the top of the list. well done. --Jmcstrav talk 18:14, 15 April 2008
      - It's also been linked to from digg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.153.51 (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this entire section about being on digg for an awesome name is unnecessary and should be removed. In a few hours people will forget it was on digg. - Skyhook19 (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digg traffic should be over soon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.38.78 (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manliest fucking name EVAR!!! 201.215.34.185 (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manley Power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080523115325/http://www.galafilm.com/1812/e/people/brisbane.html to http://www.galafilm.com/1812/e/people/brisbane.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Manley Power

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 00:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very old promotion which is in poor condition. The article is at most a summary of (some) of Power's career, and misses out a lot of detail. It also fails on such basic details as his birth. Over time I have added to the infobox of this article, not truly looking at the state of the main text. The contrast is clear.

The sources used are poor, ignoring almost all modern scholarship. I am not one to deride older sources if they are useful, but many of the sources here are nineteenth century, and not even his Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry is used, never mind any other literature. I also take into account the reliance on original research and primary sources in requesting this reassessment; the most-referenced source in the article is an archive of papers.

I will look to re-write this article, as it deserves, but do not have the time to do so in one sitting. It should in the meantime not keep its Good Article status. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.