Talk:Otto von Bismarck: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>John Kenney No edit summary |
imported>Petréa Mitchell (Big Cleanup checklist) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{checklist | |||
| abc = von Bismarck, Otto | |||
| cat1 = History | |||
| cat2 = | |||
| cat3 = | |||
| cat_check = n | |||
| status = 1 | |||
| underlinked = y | |||
| cleanup = y | |||
| by = [[User:Petréa Mitchell|Petréa Mitchell]] 20:39, 30 March 2007 (CDT) | |||
}} | |||
I just copied over and edited slightly a bibliographical e-mail I sent to someone on Bismarck to help her in an assignment. Not by any means comprehensive, but it's a start. | I just copied over and edited slightly a bibliographical e-mail I sent to someone on Bismarck to help her in an assignment. Not by any means comprehensive, but it's a start. | ||
Revision as of 19:39, 30 March 2007
Workgroup category or categories | History Workgroup [Categories OK] |
Article status | Developed article: complete or nearly so |
Underlinked article? | Yes |
Basic cleanup done? | Yes |
Checklist last edited by | Petréa Mitchell 20:39, 30 March 2007 (CDT) |
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.
I just copied over and edited slightly a bibliographical e-mail I sent to someone on Bismarck to help her in an assignment. Not by any means comprehensive, but it's a start.
- Forgive me for being blunt, Rob, but I'm not sure that it wouldn't be better to delete this and start from scratch. It looks to me as though this article is something of a less-polished paraphrase of the wikipedia article on Bismarck. The wikipedia article isn't as bad as it might be, but it's not really very sophisticated. I actually have at hand A.J.P. Taylor's biography of Bismarck. It's not the best or most up to date biography of the man, but it's decent enough, and should be fine as the basis for a basic encyclopedia article on him. Would you mind terribly if I started over and wrote something based on that? John Kenney 01:37, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
- No offense taken, it wasn't meant to be encyclopedic when I wrote it for my friend and I merely brought it over because I figured a start is better than nothing. I was going to come through later and try to clean it up and elaborate (certainly extend it beyond 1870.) By all means go ahead and do what you want with this (especially since it seems to be related to your area of expertise.) -Rob Glass 09:45, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
- Great, thanks. I'll try to get to work later today. John Kenney 09:56, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
Categories:
- History Category Check
- General Category Check
- Category Check
- Advanced Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- History Advanced Articles
- History Nonstub Articles
- History Internal Articles
- Developed Articles
- History Developed Articles
- Developing Articles
- History Developing Articles
- Stub Articles
- History Stub Articles
- External Articles
- History External Articles
- History Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- History Cleanup
- General Cleanup
- Cleanup