Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process.
To uphold the quality of
Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the
GA criteria as part of the
GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of January 14, 2010, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from
WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at
WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at
WP:GAR.
OK, the prose could do with a thorough copyedit and there are some dead links that need looking at, also the citation style is inconsistent at present. When that is sorted out I will take another look, until then on hold for seven days, major contributors and projects will be informed. Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I've been meaning to clear this article up. I might be able to get to it later this week, but that's tentative. WesleyDodds ( talk) 04:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process.
To uphold the quality of
Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the
GA criteria as part of the
GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of January 14, 2010, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from
WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at
WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at
WP:GAR.
OK, the prose could do with a thorough copyedit and there are some dead links that need looking at, also the citation style is inconsistent at present. When that is sorted out I will take another look, until then on hold for seven days, major contributors and projects will be informed. Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I've been meaning to clear this article up. I might be able to get to it later this week, but that's tentative. WesleyDodds ( talk) 04:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)