Piet Mondrian
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch •
- Result: (Endorse) Delist. See comments below (and I agree!). Geometry guy 17:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
This article was delisted because of copyright concerns [1] that were subsequently addressed and the GA template restored [2]; however User:Phr failed to remove it from the delisted category in that edit. Because the category tag was there, User:Shimmera subsequently removed the GA template [3] [4].
This has led to a confusing situation. The DelistedGA template that Shimmera added says to address the "suggestions below", however the questions that had been raised over GA status had already been fixed by this point. It may be that this needs to be a renom instead since so long has passed since the mistake happened, but since the delisting was originally due to a typo, I think its best to request reassessment first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazzargh ( talk • contribs) 14:31, April 11, 2008
- Endorse Delisting. The article has just one in-line citation. It fails WP:LEAD. It has list-like sections. It will need work before it meets GA standards. Majoreditor ( talk) 00:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse delist: Agree with Majoreditor. While some of its issues are easily fixed, the article needs such considerable sourcing work that it would very likely be quick-failed if it was renominated. EyeSerene talk 08:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delist due to lack of verification (citations), and the inadequate lead section. LuciferMorgan ( talk) 09:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Piet Mondrian
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch •
- Result: (Endorse) Delist. See comments below (and I agree!). Geometry guy 17:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
This article was delisted because of copyright concerns [1] that were subsequently addressed and the GA template restored [2]; however User:Phr failed to remove it from the delisted category in that edit. Because the category tag was there, User:Shimmera subsequently removed the GA template [3] [4].
This has led to a confusing situation. The DelistedGA template that Shimmera added says to address the "suggestions below", however the questions that had been raised over GA status had already been fixed by this point. It may be that this needs to be a renom instead since so long has passed since the mistake happened, but since the delisting was originally due to a typo, I think its best to request reassessment first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazzargh ( talk • contribs) 14:31, April 11, 2008
- Endorse Delisting. The article has just one in-line citation. It fails WP:LEAD. It has list-like sections. It will need work before it meets GA standards. Majoreditor ( talk) 00:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse delist: Agree with Majoreditor. While some of its issues are easily fixed, the article needs such considerable sourcing work that it would very likely be quick-failed if it was renominated. EyeSerene talk 08:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delist due to lack of verification (citations), and the inadequate lead section. LuciferMorgan ( talk) 09:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)