The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Result: delist There has been little progress in addressing the concerns raised. Although dead links may be permissible, citations should be verifiable. Citation needed tags need addressing. Prose could do with improving. No strong support that this article meets the GA criteria.
Jezhotwells (
talk)
23:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)reply
I am placing the article for Good article reassessment because it has some serious cleanup and grammar issues and no longer meets GA criteria. My main concern that there are dead links in the article.
Article could do with a decent copy edit. Language is casual in places, and there are a number of single sentence paragraphs. There is also a little too much fluff, so could do with a tighten. I note that the main contributors are keen to continually improve the article, and their energy and enthusiasm is to be commended. I suggest requesting assistance from
Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. SilkTork *
Tea time10:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)reply
There's nothing wrong with having a handful of dead URLs in citations.
WP:DEADREF, which was significantly revised earlier this year, actually prohibits editors from removing them under most circumstances. There has never been a GA criteria that required 100% functional URLs for sources.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
17:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Result: delist There has been little progress in addressing the concerns raised. Although dead links may be permissible, citations should be verifiable. Citation needed tags need addressing. Prose could do with improving. No strong support that this article meets the GA criteria.
Jezhotwells (
talk)
23:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)reply
I am placing the article for Good article reassessment because it has some serious cleanup and grammar issues and no longer meets GA criteria. My main concern that there are dead links in the article.
Article could do with a decent copy edit. Language is casual in places, and there are a number of single sentence paragraphs. There is also a little too much fluff, so could do with a tighten. I note that the main contributors are keen to continually improve the article, and their energy and enthusiasm is to be commended. I suggest requesting assistance from
Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. SilkTork *
Tea time10:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)reply
There's nothing wrong with having a handful of dead URLs in citations.
WP:DEADREF, which was significantly revised earlier this year, actually prohibits editors from removing them under most circumstances. There has never been a GA criteria that required 100% functional URLs for sources.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
17:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.