Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
The original review (
Talk:Dabangg/GA1) was not adequate and I think that this article is severely substandard for a GA. Therefore, I will be reassessing it against the GA criteria.
Rcsprinter123
(prattle) @
19:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
There are clearly many issues with the article, not least the plot section which is in need of wikification, and the high
number of dead links. Also, there is nobody providing any attention to this article who might be able to improve it to GA status. Until that time, it is
Delisted as a GA.
Rcsprinter123
(state) @
17:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
The original review (
Talk:Dabangg/GA1) was not adequate and I think that this article is severely substandard for a GA. Therefore, I will be reassessing it against the GA criteria.
Rcsprinter123
(prattle) @
19:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
There are clearly many issues with the article, not least the plot section which is in need of wikification, and the high
number of dead links. Also, there is nobody providing any attention to this article who might be able to improve it to GA status. Until that time, it is
Delisted as a GA.
Rcsprinter123
(state) @
17:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)