James Armstrong (Georgia politician) was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This guy died in 1800. The first photograph in history would not arrive until 1826. I suppose one could add a photograph to this article, but a photograph of what, exactly -- a tombstone, perhaps? 75.71.67.2 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I notice that our article on the United States presidential election, 1788–89, states the following with regard to James Armstrong:
Whilst it does appear to be that the Presidential nominee was James Armstrong from Georgia, we ought to mention in his article that scholars have not always made that identification, otherwise we are potentially giving undue weight to that interpretation. —Noswall59 (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC).
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 22:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I've copyedited a bit. I don't really think there's anything that I can say against approving, but given the length, I'm going to request a second opinion.Eddie891 Talk Work 19:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Last month, User:Lilredreb removed a large amount of information from this page, asserting that the article was conflating different people. This article needs someone familiar with the subject area to sort it out. It needs to be determined if the removal of information was the correct thing to do. If it was, then the references listed in the bibliography section need to be checked if they apply to this guy or the other guy. The infobox would need to be removed or replaced. I also have some concerns relating to whether this is sufficiently broad in coverage. Some newspaper references could be used. If that is not possible, then I would call into question whether this subject matter passes GNG. Steelkamp (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delist. A good article does not need to be long, but this is less informative than some stub articles i've seen. Also i think that he may not be notable based on the lack of info i've found online. The helper5667 (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delist I am unsure if this is an option, but agree per nom, as the article is extremely poor IMO. With barely more than 100 words, a one-sentence lead, and few refs, IMO this should at best be a start article; its notability is also probably questionable, namely this line: Much of his early life is unknown
. VickKiang (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)