Talk:William M. Brish

This orphaned talk page, subpage, image page, or similar is not eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G8 as it has been asserted to be useful to Wikipedia.
If you believe it should be deleted, please nominate it on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.

William M. Brish was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 5, 2022	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 29, 2013.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that William M. Brish was instrumental in developing the first closed circuit television network for public elementary schools?

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This page 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
	This page is supported by the science and academia work group.

Television

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision

GA Review

Unsuccessful. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2022 (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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:William M. Brish/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 21:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Doug Coldwell, I'm going to open GA reviews for all of your remaining nominations and post this identical message on all of them. First of all, they'll need an active nominator, so if you're still around to review them, please let me know by a week from now (10/5). If you haven't, at that point, they'll be closed without passing. If you are still around, *please* check that they will pass source review and withdraw the nominations that will not. Otherwise, that is likely to be the first thing I check and I would prefer not to have to go through all of them just to quick-fail them if I find problems you already know about. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Coldwell: I'm planning to close this soon (on the 5th) if there is no response. Let me know if you are around to respond to comments, and if so please check them for issues as mentioned above. —Ganesha811 (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as unsuccessful due to nominator non-response. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

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.