Talk:Baltimore Urban Debate League

GA failed

Issues

• Lead needs to be longer and summarise the whole article
• There are fair use images which need a speicific rationale of FU. Need to make comments about the FUsage, not just adding a template, per the instructions on the template
• The vast majority of the article is not referenced
• The remainder of the article had reference problems, since many of the references are the website of BUDL, so these cannot be used as they are not independent.
• The ref style needs to be consistent. They are reffed in a variety of ways, and in some cases the ref is before and some cases after the full stop. Need to see {{cite web}} because the date of publication, accessdate, publisher, author, etc should be included.
• Some details like the names of students who did well seem to be going into unnecessary detail and maybe construed as bordering on advertising.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nominee for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of July 25, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: prose is solid

2. Factually accurate?: article is well-sourced

3. Broad in coverage?: more than thorough

4. Neutral point of view?: no overt POV

5. Article stability? article is not subject to edit wars

6. Images?: all are free or have fair use rationales

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. — Argos'Dad 02:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.examiner.com/a-525464~Debating_to_the_top.html

  Triggered by (?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$) on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 18:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 17:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Community reassessment

Baltimore Urban Debate League

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

Result: Delisted I am making a decision on this one even though I commented below. If anyone disagrees they can revert. I am delisting it because even though this version is better than the shortened one it still has failings regarding the Good Article Criteria. Obvious issues are the big tag requesting updating and also the citation needed ones sprinkled throughout. It is also missing referencing in other key spots (e.g. the champions) and some of the material does not appear encyclopedic. It needs a good copy edit and some research by editors before being nominated again. AIRcorn (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC).

Since the GAR in 2007, this article has been stripped down to a bare stub (compare) by several editors who assert that the previous content was promotional, poorly sourced/heresay, and out-of-date. Some of the content was sourced to independent refs. Out-of-date content can be rephrased using terms like "as of" if nobody knows the current info or updated if an up-to-date source is known. But so much outright deletion means some editors think it wasn't salvageable, and this process has been happening by multiple editors over multiple years.

What's here now is not up to Good article standards: badly fails point GA 3: "Broad in its coverage", and compared to previous versions there might be some reasonable images (GA point 6: "Illustrated, if possible, by images"). The editing is slow-motion and with edit-summaries and no disputes from other editors, so I don't think it's a major GA point 5: Stable" problem; either it's now stable as a neutral stub or it was previously okay and could be edited back to the previous form for collaborative improvement. DMacks (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with restoration of deleted content that was sourced to independent references. I also agree that out-of-date content should either be updated or rephrased. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I will restore the last good version and tidy it up some. We can then decide whether that version meets the GA criteria, because this one certainly doesn't. AIRcorn (talk) 03:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Added some tags (update and citation needed). AIRcorn (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)