Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
This article now meets the good article criteria. This article has undergone massive and agonizing work and improvement. Passionately disagreeing editors have clashed and finally come to a solution for this former good article which is now much better than it was when it was a good article before. The article is comprehensive, yet concise, every claim has a RS reference, the language is as simple as it can be for such a complex topic. A person who has no idea about the subject who reads this article will come away with a good summary understanding of the topic. I feel that aside from minor tweeks no major work is needed on this article in terms of adding any information that is missing, and not covered in some linked article or the other. I am sure this article is not perfect, I am sure it is at least a "Good Article" once more. --
Hfarmer (
talk)
00:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I am going to have to fail this article's GA nomination due to the ongoing discussion over NPOV, as well as the presence of cleanup banners and fact tags in the article. I'm glad that discussion rather than edit warring seems to be the prevailing method of dispute resolution on this article, but until the discussion over NPOV is resolved, the article cannot become of GA status. Once this dispute has been resolved, please feel free to renominate the article at GAN. Dana boomer ( talk) 13:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
This article now meets the good article criteria. This article has undergone massive and agonizing work and improvement. Passionately disagreeing editors have clashed and finally come to a solution for this former good article which is now much better than it was when it was a good article before. The article is comprehensive, yet concise, every claim has a RS reference, the language is as simple as it can be for such a complex topic. A person who has no idea about the subject who reads this article will come away with a good summary understanding of the topic. I feel that aside from minor tweeks no major work is needed on this article in terms of adding any information that is missing, and not covered in some linked article or the other. I am sure this article is not perfect, I am sure it is at least a "Good Article" once more. --
Hfarmer (
talk)
00:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I am going to have to fail this article's GA nomination due to the ongoing discussion over NPOV, as well as the presence of cleanup banners and fact tags in the article. I'm glad that discussion rather than edit warring seems to be the prevailing method of dispute resolution on this article, but until the discussion over NPOV is resolved, the article cannot become of GA status. Once this dispute has been resolved, please feel free to renominate the article at GAN. Dana boomer ( talk) 13:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)