FamilySearch Wiki talk:Featured Article Archive: Difference between revisions

No edit summary
(→‎yes this awesome: new section)
Line 24: Line 24:


this is wonderful Steve thank you so much the archives look so good. The user box for those working on the featured artcles looks fine, yes go a head with it. again Steve thank you.[[User:HoleDL|Dawne]] 20:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC) 
this is wonderful Steve thank you so much the archives look so good. The user box for those working on the featured artcles looks fine, yes go a head with it. again Steve thank you.[[User:HoleDL|Dawne]] 20:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC) 
== yes this awesome  ==
Steve this is very healthy and excited. What do you think of this, I had put some of this on forums for the criteria?
 Trustworthy - Do you feel this page has sufficient citations and that those citations come from trustworthy sources?<br> Objective - Do you feel that this page shows a fair representation of all perspectives on the issue?<br> Complete - Do you feel that this page covers the essential topic areas that it should?<br> Well-written - Do you feel that this page is well-organized and well-written?<br> Should have at least one internal link and one external link<br> Gives sources.<br> An image in the article with captions <br> Divided by headings.<br> If the article is about where records are the external link could take us there if possible.<br> Compliant with Style guide <br> Give comprehensiveness of collection, such as transcribed or user submitted<br> When applicable dates included<br> If there is a cost, state that a cost is included.
[[User:HoleDL|Dawne]] 17:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)<br> Why is the record worth searching?<br>````
2,736

edits