Make sure you proofread this section, as there are many errors that I found. Make sure to:
Make sure access dates are specific, and do not include just the date and year as references did in this section
Make sure you the correct templates of {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} to properly format the references
Make sure everything complies with the items discussed at
WP:REF
That is not part of the GAN criteria. --Rschen7754 22:22, 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
Yes, that is correct. I've found replacements for two; looking for the third. --Rschen7754 22:39, 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
Okay, everything should be good to go. --Rschen7754 23:30, 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
Since all of the issues have been addressed, I feel confident passing this article. Congratulations and keep up the good work!
Rp0211(talk2me) 23:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Make sure you proofread this section, as there are many errors that I found. Make sure to:
Make sure access dates are specific, and do not include just the date and year as references did in this section
Make sure you the correct templates of {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} to properly format the references
Make sure everything complies with the items discussed at
WP:REF
That is not part of the GAN criteria. --Rschen7754 22:22, 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
Yes, that is correct. I've found replacements for two; looking for the third. --Rschen7754 22:39, 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
Okay, everything should be good to go. --Rschen7754 23:30, 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
Since all of the issues have been addressed, I feel confident passing this article. Congratulations and keep up the good work!
Rp0211(talk2me) 23:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)reply