This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cats. This project provides a central approach to Cat-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.CatsWikipedia:WikiProject CatsTemplate:WikiProject CatsCats articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
I've revived it as the cat's two sucessors have articles and this cat apparently had the job longer than them. Also the tendency to "delete by redirecting" is one I strongly disdain.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hello! I'm happy to review this article. I'll be using the template below. If you have any questions as we go, you can just ask here or on my talk page, either's fine! —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article meets the GA standard. Congrats to Tim O'Doherty and everyone else who worked on it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking up the review. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
Pass, well-sourced.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
A few tabloid sources, but nothing known to be generally unreliable, and generally good newspaper sourcing. Pass.
The discussion above 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.
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Evrik (talk) 06:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overall: @Tim O'Doherty: Good article. But, i feel as if these hooks aren't all too interesting. Is there something better that could be done? Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]