The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the Palanga Amber Museum(pictured) in
Lithuania holds a collection of about 28,000 items of
amber, including about 15,000 pieces that contain insects, spiders, and plants?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Lithuania 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.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
museums 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.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
Talk:Palanga Amber Museum is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use
geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the
project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
This article has failed GA nomination primarily on criteria 2(b) for insufficient references. There are large parts of all three sections that need to be referenced. Specifically, the historical aspects of the article and the 'most photographed' claim need citations. A much smaller issue is a couple of statements that are subjective evaluations. An example of this is the "most unusual in the exhibit" because this is a subjective statement. It should either be removed or quoted from a particular source. Otherwise, the article is interesting and readable and is close to GA status.-
Dekkanar19:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Hello! You failed
Palanga Amber Museum as GA and listed problems, I addressed them, particularly - introduced additional sources, reworded speculated sentences. Could you please take a look now - are you concerns solved by these adjustments. If so, do I need to renominated article again? Cheers,
M.K.09:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)reply
After looking at the article with the changes that have been made, I agree that my concernes have been mostly addressed. I still think that there is room for improvement and more references, but I think that this probably meets the GA standards now. Renominating the article is your next step now. Good luck on future reviews!
Dekkanar13:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I made further improvements - added more refs, formated text and references. I hope that new GA review this article would pass :)
M.K.19:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Merge
Just a quick note, the merge proposal should probably be either taken care of or removed if the article is to pass GA.
Chubbles03:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)reply
GA PASS
I have reviewed the article, taking into account the past review and agree that the article meets most of the criteria listed under good article status. However I have two main concerns - relating to point 5 and point 6A - see
WP:WIAGA.
Firstly and most importantly there is a merge tag on this article. Until the merge is over and a consenus reached, ergo edits are made if a merge is agreed upon then the article is likely to change and is not stable i.e. "it does not change significantly from day to day". Therefore I have placed the application on hold, until the merge (and any large amount of edits) are over.
Secondly I think the image captions need working on. Point 6A. For example, "Mere in the Amber Museum garden" - what is mere and what is it refering to?
Hello, starting from the first - the merge tag was placed by anon
[1] without any explanations, then another related article appeared on main page, but I did not payed attention to it as I thought that merge tag would not hold GA nominations as guidelines of GA suggests: It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content.. In other hand tag can be removed I think. Second point I am a not understanding it a bit. You asking that is Mere? If so
Mere explanation. Could you explain this point a bit more?
M.K.13:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Well I think you can remove the merge tag anyway, since its been there since the 8th April and no ones commented on it - including the anon who place it there without an explanation. As for the image caption I was confused, as I have never heard of the term mere except in the name of something e.g.
Lake Windermere. To clarify it helps by wikilinking items within the caption e.g. mere as well as other things e.g.
Birutė and
Eglė. To help you edit the captions, have a look at
Wikipedia:Captions. Thats all thats needed for GA.
LordHarris13:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)reply
This article is now GA status. To further improve to FA level, I recommend expanding some of the sections e.g. the exhibits section. Perhaps include a list of exhibits, perhaps a gallery of the rooms etc and maybe a few references about current exhibits etc. Good work.
LordHarris14:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I have just modified one external link on
Palanga Amber Museum. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.