This article has been reviewed as part of
Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the
Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a
Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through
WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at
WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.
- Eight of the 65 links given in References are dead. [1]
-- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 14:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please re-run the link check. I attempted to repair all fo them, but I may have missed some in the clutter. This excersize was depressing: The links that I thought would be the most important and reliable turned out to be the least reliable. I had to shift to alternate sources. this was especially true for documents that turned out to be emparassing for the sites that originally hosted them. - Arch dude ( talk) 00:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- I do appreciate and sympathise with how difficult it is to keep articles up-to-date, particularly when they rely on sometimes ephemeral Web sources. Thanks for the work you've done; I've now closed this review as a keep. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 01:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
This article has been reviewed as part of
Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the
Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a
Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through
WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at
WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.
- Eight of the 65 links given in References are dead. [1]
-- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 14:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please re-run the link check. I attempted to repair all fo them, but I may have missed some in the clutter. This excersize was depressing: The links that I thought would be the most important and reliable turned out to be the least reliable. I had to shift to alternate sources. this was especially true for documents that turned out to be emparassing for the sites that originally hosted them. - Arch dude ( talk) 00:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- I do appreciate and sympathise with how difficult it is to keep articles up-to-date, particularly when they rely on sometimes ephemeral Web sources. Thanks for the work you've done; I've now closed this review as a keep. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 01:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)