Ash Panesar was nominated as a Media and drama good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 7, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Dr. Swag Lord: Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d ( talk · contribs) Hello. I will begin reviewing this article soon. 11:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
As explained in
Nish Panesar I'll have to withdraw this nomination. Major apoloies for any inconveniences.
FishLoveHam (
talk)
21:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you again for your work on the articles. Since I had already had my review written up for this article, I might as well insert it to help the future nominator correct the issues in the article:
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |
Main concern: Once again, as with Talk:Gray Atkins/GA1 and Talk:Nish Panesar/GA1, my main concern relates to the sheer amount of tabloid sources in article:
Given that the vast majority of this article is cited to tabloids, I must quick fail this article as it is a long way from meeting the GA criteria. To make the same clarification as my prior reviews: if a clear consensus emerges that these tabloids are in fact RSs on soap operas, then I’ll happily reverse my decision and someone else may nominate this article to GA again. Thank you once more for your work! Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 22:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Ash Panesar was nominated as a Media and drama good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 7, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Dr. Swag Lord: Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d ( talk · contribs) Hello. I will begin reviewing this article soon. 11:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
As explained in
Nish Panesar I'll have to withdraw this nomination. Major apoloies for any inconveniences.
FishLoveHam (
talk)
21:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you again for your work on the articles. Since I had already had my review written up for this article, I might as well insert it to help the future nominator correct the issues in the article:
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |
Main concern: Once again, as with Talk:Gray Atkins/GA1 and Talk:Nish Panesar/GA1, my main concern relates to the sheer amount of tabloid sources in article:
Given that the vast majority of this article is cited to tabloids, I must quick fail this article as it is a long way from meeting the GA criteria. To make the same clarification as my prior reviews: if a clear consensus emerges that these tabloids are in fact RSs on soap operas, then I’ll happily reverse my decision and someone else may nominate this article to GA again. Thank you once more for your work! Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 22:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)