Talk:Sugarloaf (ski resort)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sugarloaf (ski resort) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Sugarloaf (ski resort) was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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
January 29, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed

Maine

	Maine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MaineWikipedia:WikiProject MaineTemplate:WikiProject MaineMaine articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Skiing and Snowboarding Mid‑importance

	Sports portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skiing and Snowboarding, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of skiing and snowboarding 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.Skiing and SnowboardingWikipedia:WikiProject Skiing and SnowboardingTemplate:WikiProject Skiing and SnowboardingSkiing and Snowboarding articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

page move

Moved from Sugarloaf/USA to Sugarloaf (ski resort) to reflect name change of resort.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

For some unknown reason, not all of the info in the info box appears when the article is looked at. Can anyone help? --Bubblecuffer (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

80s and 90s

In this section of the arcticle, is stated "(Pictured is the Sugarloaf Logo with the orange scheme)"

Except, to the best of my knowledge, nowhere in the article is there featured an orenge-themed logo.Chamberlian (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA

Nominated this article for GA statusChamberlian (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly note, the article is somewhat improved since I first saw it. The referencing needs improving; you need to use citation templates to make it clear what the source is; ref #19 is dead, the link to Greyhound buses isn't a reference, most of the rest are SPS or non-reliable sources; the prose is not really good enough for GA, teh layout doesn't sufficielntly comply, lots of short sentences and short sections. It still isn't really encyclopaedic ebough, in my opinion. Too many images, one of them has no permisssion, another has few details. I'll leave it to a reviewer to get into this in detail but you could do yourself a favour by sorting it out before a reviewer turns up. Please read Wikipedia:Good article criteria and do an honest self assessment. Also take a look at some othetr Good Articles Jezhotwells (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sugarloaf (ski resort)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Sadly, this article does need a lot of work before it can be classified as "good":

There's lots of unsourced information and apparent original research.
The writing is choppy in some areas, with short start-and-stop paragraphs.
An audit for MOS compliance is necessary.
The references need to be formatted properly.

In light of the above issues, I'm quick-failing the GA nomination. Let me know when you've brought the article up to standard and I'll review it again. Regards –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]