Agreed. There isn't any part of the GAN criteria that requires any specificity nor consistency to the references, so long as the reviewer can verify the information. That isn't to say that specificity and consistency aren't good things, but they actually aren't required. Imzadi 1979→22:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Are you just referring to the use of
WP:REF? If so, then I have noted what you both have said. However, there are three dead link issues that need to be addressed, and I know that it concerns the good article criteria. Thanks for bringing this up though; it is feedback like this that makes us better on Wikipedia.
Rp0211(talk2me)22:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)reply
But see also
WP:DEADREF. Links to sources don't actually have to work for the content to be verifiable, especially if the link only recently went dead. (Archive sites have a lag of up to around 18 months, so something that's dead today could be revived through the archive site in the future.) Imzadi 1979→22:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)reply
After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided to put the article on hold at this time. I will give you the general seven days to fix these mistakes and/or address issues which you believe do not concern good article status. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.
Rp0211(talk2me)22:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Agreed. There isn't any part of the GAN criteria that requires any specificity nor consistency to the references, so long as the reviewer can verify the information. That isn't to say that specificity and consistency aren't good things, but they actually aren't required. Imzadi 1979→22:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Are you just referring to the use of
WP:REF? If so, then I have noted what you both have said. However, there are three dead link issues that need to be addressed, and I know that it concerns the good article criteria. Thanks for bringing this up though; it is feedback like this that makes us better on Wikipedia.
Rp0211(talk2me)22:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)reply
But see also
WP:DEADREF. Links to sources don't actually have to work for the content to be verifiable, especially if the link only recently went dead. (Archive sites have a lag of up to around 18 months, so something that's dead today could be revived through the archive site in the future.) Imzadi 1979→22:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)reply
After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided to put the article on hold at this time. I will give you the general seven days to fix these mistakes and/or address issues which you believe do not concern good article status. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.
Rp0211(talk2me)22:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)reply