GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Femkemilene ( talk · contribs) 14:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Upon its review on April 7, 2019, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:
thus making it ineligible for good article consideration. Comment: While the article is very broad, many sections need updating. This requires a lot of work (please do it, would be lovely if this article is improved!)
This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far.— Femke Nijsse ( talk) 18:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
It would be lovely if we can work towards a good article. I think what we need to do will take quite a while:
Femke Nijsse ( talk) 18:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
An article can, but by no means must, be failed without further review (known as a quick fail) if, prior to the review:... So, it is not accurate to say the article was ineligible for GA consideration: you had the option to do a more complete review if you wished to, but it was certainly eligible to be quickfailed as you did. BlueMoonset ( talk) 03:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Femkemilene ( talk · contribs) 14:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Upon its review on April 7, 2019, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:
thus making it ineligible for good article consideration. Comment: While the article is very broad, many sections need updating. This requires a lot of work (please do it, would be lovely if this article is improved!)
This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far.— Femke Nijsse ( talk) 18:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
It would be lovely if we can work towards a good article. I think what we need to do will take quite a while:
Femke Nijsse ( talk) 18:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
An article can, but by no means must, be failed without further review (known as a quick fail) if, prior to the review:... So, it is not accurate to say the article was ineligible for GA consideration: you had the option to do a more complete review if you wished to, but it was certainly eligible to be quickfailed as you did. BlueMoonset ( talk) 03:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)