Talk:Civil War Memorial (Sycamore, Illinois)/Archive 1

GA pass
Paying attention to the comments at the nomination, I do not think that the conciseness of this article affects the point 3 of WP:WIAGA. This is a war memorial and as such I think that apart from its design, its purpose (i.e. what it memorialises), its significance what else can you write about it!? I cant find any problems with references, images, style etc so GA pass. Interestingly I have to ask how is "Antietam" misspelled? Perhaps that could be incorporated. Furthermore is there any info on its mispelling, why, who etc? LordHarris 00:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Antietam, is mispelled "Anteitam," check the picture in that section. The thing about the who and why is that the designer/sculptor(s) are unknown. Beyond original research I don't know how to approach that. Which brings to question, if I work as a stringer and do original research publish it in the local newspaper (getting paid), then can I use it? IvoShandor 21:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry Im not sure about that - I guess as a published source you could use it as a reference but if its by yourself does that make a difference? You could post a question at Reference desk and they would be able to tell you. LordHarris 14:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Taft
This sculpture wasn't created by Lorado Taft according to every source I have seen. No one knows who created it, if you have a reliable source crediting to Taft then add it. Don't add assumptions, and original research though, thanks. IvoShandor 20:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

 * This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Civil War Memorial (Sycamore, Illinois)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: 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 went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good 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 may be beneficial to look for any updates, or see if there were any more recent stories in the news. I would also recommend updating the access dates of the sources. 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 • contrib) 01:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)