Talk:Tenney, Minnesota

Tenney, Minnesota received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Minnesota Low‑importance

	Minnesota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota 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.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Demotion to B-Class

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm demoting this article from A to B-class, as it still has major weaknesses and cannot be considered to approach the standards for a FA. The organization is poor ("Geography" and "Location" should not be separate sections, for one). The "Geography", "Points of Interest" and "Location" sections are unreferenced, and the "Description" and "History" sections need additional references. The introduction is too short and does not even mention the article's largest section, and the prose is weak at points and includes vernacular terms. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Energetic Efforts

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"The population bottomed out at 2 sometime after the 2000 census, but due to the energetic efforts of current residents, the population has again risen to five, and efforts to attract more residents are ongoing."

That's an outrageously unencyclopedic statement! It's listed as requiring citation, but I really don't think this process will have been documented in any peer-reviewed format. Amazing that it's survived so long - this line appeared in an anonymous edit, 19 December 2006. I'm going to cull and reword this bit, but I thought it was worth saving this line on the talk page for posterity. Cfmdobbie (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic