Talk:Pattillo Higgins

GA on hold
This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :


 * 1. Well written? Fail Pass
 * 2. Factually accurate? Pass
 * 3. Broad in coverage? Fail Pass
 * 4. Neutral point of view? Pass
 * 5. Article stability? Pass
 * 6. Images? Pass

Additional comments : Lincher 13:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This article needs a throughout copyedit.
 * Example: When he was seventeen, it was this activity that got the attention of some sheriff deputies who attempted to reprimand him. An altercation ensued, which left a deputy dead and his arm wounded severely requiring its amputation. During the trial for murder, he claimed self defense as the reason he shot the deputy, and he managed to convince the jury that this was the case.
 * Can this article be expanded beyond the oil business company for he is stated as being a geologist in the lead section and there is no mention of it in the article.

Per the good points mentioned above, I have done some improvements to the article. Many thanks. JungleCat   talk / contrib  00:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * More details on Higgins’ self-taught geology training introduced to article.
 * Added reference to Houston Geological Society to re-enforce this.
 * Rework of various text where copyedit was needed. There is no verbatim text from any reference.
 * Very nice job, JC. This is a very nice, readable article. Well done! :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

GA passed
Thanks to the many additions that were done to the article. It is now of GA quality. Cheers, Lincher 11:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

 * This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Pattillo Higgins/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 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. I would 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) 04:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)