Result: Not Listed - This GAR was a quick-failed GAN. The GAR has been up for a month and the article clearly did not meet criteria 1a and 2. There were 4 votes to not list and none to list. One reviewer suggested holding off while a full review was finished, but there has been no activity or meaningful discussion in over 2 weeks.Aaronnorth (
T/
C) 02:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Completing nomination for community reassessment on behalf of the nominator who did not agree with my quick-fail.
Jezhotwells (
talk) 22:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Do not list. Poorly written; poorly sourced; overuse of poorly motivated fair use images.
Ucucha 23:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Do not list poorly written; largely unreferenced, and what is, contain only bare links. Reception section does not focus on reviews and sales/watchership, but rather on spin-off merchandise. Clearly short of the GA criteria. Arsenikk(talk) 08:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Unless there is any objection I will close this tomorrow as upholding the quick fail. No reasons have been brought forward here for why this article meets GA criteria. SilkTork *
YES! 10:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Above comments suggest that peer review would be appropriate, not an extended review here, which I note the GAN nominator has not responded to.
Jezhotwells (
talk) 16:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Has the nominator been invited to comment here? He may not realise that he may. --
Malkinann (
talk) 19:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes -
User_talk:Railer-man#Your_GA_nomination_of_Cyborg_Kuro-chan - and he acknowledges that the article has failed GA, and is no longer contesting the fail. If you withdraw your objection then this GAR can be closed. I am now going to France and will have very limited internet access for 12 days, so I won't be closing it. SilkTork *
YES! 06:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)reply
There is no deadline - I'd like this article to recieve a longer review based on the GA criteria, not on the quick-fail criteria. The nomination was by someone new to the GA process, which according to
WP:RGA should warrant a full review. The initial review and the reviews by Ucucha and Arsenikk above are out of date. --
Malkinann (
talk) 06:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)reply
The character list could use a cast listing for the anime. --
Malkinann (
talk) 23:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Weak Do Not List - The prose isn't great, but the article was very poorly cited. A quick-fail was not an unreasonable decision, but if we have a reviewer willing to give a full GA review, I guess I'm fine with keeping this GAR open for a week after the review is finished. I am skeptical that this will ultimately pass.
Aaronnorth (
T/
C) 19:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Re-open reassessment: While it is hard to find sources for the current epidsode list, I am doing my best. Other Kuro-chan pages on Wikipedia in various languages feature info on episode dates and other character information.
Railer-man (
talk) 23:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Result: Not Listed - This GAR was a quick-failed GAN. The GAR has been up for a month and the article clearly did not meet criteria 1a and 2. There were 4 votes to not list and none to list. One reviewer suggested holding off while a full review was finished, but there has been no activity or meaningful discussion in over 2 weeks.Aaronnorth (
T/
C) 02:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Completing nomination for community reassessment on behalf of the nominator who did not agree with my quick-fail.
Jezhotwells (
talk) 22:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Do not list. Poorly written; poorly sourced; overuse of poorly motivated fair use images.
Ucucha 23:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Do not list poorly written; largely unreferenced, and what is, contain only bare links. Reception section does not focus on reviews and sales/watchership, but rather on spin-off merchandise. Clearly short of the GA criteria. Arsenikk(talk) 08:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Unless there is any objection I will close this tomorrow as upholding the quick fail. No reasons have been brought forward here for why this article meets GA criteria. SilkTork *
YES! 10:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Above comments suggest that peer review would be appropriate, not an extended review here, which I note the GAN nominator has not responded to.
Jezhotwells (
talk) 16:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Has the nominator been invited to comment here? He may not realise that he may. --
Malkinann (
talk) 19:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes -
User_talk:Railer-man#Your_GA_nomination_of_Cyborg_Kuro-chan - and he acknowledges that the article has failed GA, and is no longer contesting the fail. If you withdraw your objection then this GAR can be closed. I am now going to France and will have very limited internet access for 12 days, so I won't be closing it. SilkTork *
YES! 06:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)reply
There is no deadline - I'd like this article to recieve a longer review based on the GA criteria, not on the quick-fail criteria. The nomination was by someone new to the GA process, which according to
WP:RGA should warrant a full review. The initial review and the reviews by Ucucha and Arsenikk above are out of date. --
Malkinann (
talk) 06:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)reply
The character list could use a cast listing for the anime. --
Malkinann (
talk) 23:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Weak Do Not List - The prose isn't great, but the article was very poorly cited. A quick-fail was not an unreasonable decision, but if we have a reviewer willing to give a full GA review, I guess I'm fine with keeping this GAR open for a week after the review is finished. I am skeptical that this will ultimately pass.
Aaronnorth (
T/
C) 19:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Re-open reassessment: While it is hard to find sources for the current epidsode list, I am doing my best. Other Kuro-chan pages on Wikipedia in various languages feature info on episode dates and other character information.
Railer-man (
talk) 23:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)reply