Talk:Petersen Rock Garden/Archive 1

Sources

Done

~~http://www.bendbulletin.com/article/20130201/NEWS0107/302010373/~~

~~http://books.google.com/books?id=EGNjKKGuFfsC&pg=PT268&lpg=PT268&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false~~

~~http://books.google.com/books?id=qbJCN3AheK0C&lpg=PA235&pg=PA155#v=onepage&q&f=false~~

~~http://www.oregonmuseums.org/sectionindex.asp?sectionid=11~~

~~http://books.google.com/books?id=-tYVAcaa6vIC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false~~

http://www.towertheatre.org/tickets-and-events/charles_phoenix_and_his_big_retro_slide_show

--Another Believer _(Talk) 15:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination

Resolved

I am nominating this article for Good article status. I have also requested a copy edit by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors; feel free to wait for this copy edit to be completed before starting a Good article review. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of Petersen Rock Gardens exterior link

I don't see how this link qualifies as one too be avoided. I read the link avoidance page and the Friends page does not qualify as one to be avoided. From what I read, it is there to help promote, restore and preserve PRG. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

#10 specifically mentions social networking sites, such as Facebook. If there is a website specifically for Friends of PRG, that might be more appropriate. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I didn't get that far down I guess.... --RoyBurtonson (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Petersen Rock Garden/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 18:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, only a few initial quibbles; this looks essentially ready to promote. Images check out, spotchecks show no copyright problems, article is neutral, sources appear reliable. Thanks for contributing another solid article.

Only one action point that I need you to look at:

"It contains dozens of "fanciful" and "intricately detailed"" -- what source are these two quotations from? I didn't immediately find them in #3 or #7. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- . Ooops. See the Via source (I just added an inline citation.) Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pass, then. Thanks for your contributions here in both prose and images! -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2013 (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.