Emmanuël Sérusiaux has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: May 27, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Pomatostomus ( talk · contribs) 07:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
#:Pass/Fail:
Overall the article looks pretty good. I've listed some potential coverage issues I'd like you to look at above, and I need to check through the references, but otherwise it looks to be in pretty good shape. Nice article. Pomatostomus ( talk) 07:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Reviewer inactive for more than 3 weeks - closing this review as not promoted.
Esculenta (
talk)
13:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
The nominee Esculenta is unable to fail a review. Review is treated as abandoned, and a 2nd opinion review is put in place, this day. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 00:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Whiteguru:, I have delinked some terms as per your suggestions. Thanks for sorting out my procedural error and taking on this second opinion. Esculenta ( talk) 14:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Emmanuël Sérusiaux has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: May 27, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Pomatostomus ( talk · contribs) 07:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
#:Pass/Fail:
Overall the article looks pretty good. I've listed some potential coverage issues I'd like you to look at above, and I need to check through the references, but otherwise it looks to be in pretty good shape. Nice article. Pomatostomus ( talk) 07:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Reviewer inactive for more than 3 weeks - closing this review as not promoted.
Esculenta (
talk)
13:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
The nominee Esculenta is unable to fail a review. Review is treated as abandoned, and a 2nd opinion review is put in place, this day. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 00:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Whiteguru:, I have delinked some terms as per your suggestions. Thanks for sorting out my procedural error and taking on this second opinion. Esculenta ( talk) 14:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)