User:Mz7/sandbox/Wings for My Flight workspace

Wayback Machine archiving

 * Oregon Live → ✅ archive link
 * "Dioxin cleanup" Free Lance Star (Google News) → ✅ archive link
 * "Christophers give awards" (Google News) → ✅ archive link
 * Library of Congress cataloging data → ❌ robots.txt prevents archiving
 * Fwsfactsheet → ✅ archive link
 * "The peregrine is back" press release → ✅ archive url
 * Peregrine Falcon "a success story" → ✅ archive url
 * Kirkus Reviews → ✅ archive url
 * Durango Herald → ✅ archive url
 * LA Times review → ✅ archive url

Good article nomination on hold
Copied from Talk:Wings for My Flight/GA1
 * 1. Well written?:


 * 1) Per WP:LEAD, please expand the lede intro sect so it can function fully as a standalone summary of the entire articles contents. A two-sentence-long first paragraph is a bit too short. Perhaps a bit more Background info in that paragraph, grounding the reader with some additional intro context. ✅
 * 2) Per WP:LEADCITE, the quoted info in the lede is repeated and cited verbatim later in the article body text. It is non-contentious and non-controversial, so in-line citations not needed in lede for this article at this time. ✅
 * 3) Per Copyvio Detector - https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Wings+for+My+Flight&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1 - showing one problem source - please try to get the quoted amount down below 30 percent confidence, via trimming/removing, and/or paraphrasing quotes. ✅
 * 4) Summary - would look better retitled as Content summary. ✅
 * 5) Publication - would look better retitled as Publication history. ✅
 * 6) Reception - could have a teensy weensy bit more background info on what the Oregon Book Award is for and by what organization it's awarded, and same for Christopher Award. ✅
 * 7) Consider adding a See also sect, if readers want to learn more on topic but stay on Wikipedia to do so. ✅ (will continue pondering though)
 * 8) Think about adding a Further reading sect, either to highlight again the best secondary sources used as citations, or to recommend to the reader additional useful secondary sources on the same topic. ✅
 * 2. Verifiable?: Checklinks tool - http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Wings_for_My_Flight - shows at least four (4) problem links - these are any links without a "0" or "200" rating, or even a "200" rating but with a comment next to it on the side. Please archive these, and seeing as how it's a small article, please archive all links with the Wayback Machine by the Internet Archive using WP:CIT template fields archiveurl and archivedate. ✅
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: The article covers a broad scope, with good organizational structure for topics including Background, Summary, Publication, and Reception. ✅
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: The material in the article is indeed presented in a neutral tone with matter-of-fact wording. ✅
 * 5. Stable? Upon my inspection of article edit history and article talk page history, the article is stable going back to 2012. ✅
 * 6. Images?: File:Wings for My Flight book cover.jpg - please ask an admin to delete the prior version of this image. ✅