TV Links
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Procedural close. No need for reassessment when renomination is preferable.
Geometry guy 09:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, we have done some changes since the last review, improving sources and wording, and other adjustments. Do you think we're ready for GA status now? ViperSnake151 04:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- This failed due to no effort being made during the review. I think it should go back to GAN. One thing: the big blue quote marks are deprecated, or so i've been told. They break up the flow too much. Also, i don't think seperate sub-sections are needed for arrest and then release. Good luck at GAN (seems a little short imo, if reviewing, i would look for places needing expansion). Yob Mod 08:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Yobmod. This should go back to GAN. GAR is for articles that people propose to remove GA status from, or articles that had problematic reviews. I move to close this review and let the initiator renom at GAN as they wish. Dana boomer ( talk) 16:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, there's no need for a GAR here. Renominate at GAN. Geometry guy 19:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, please renominate at GAN. Majoreditor ( talk) 22:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
TV Links
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Procedural close. No need for reassessment when renomination is preferable.
Geometry guy 09:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, we have done some changes since the last review, improving sources and wording, and other adjustments. Do you think we're ready for GA status now? ViperSnake151 04:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- This failed due to no effort being made during the review. I think it should go back to GAN. One thing: the big blue quote marks are deprecated, or so i've been told. They break up the flow too much. Also, i don't think seperate sub-sections are needed for arrest and then release. Good luck at GAN (seems a little short imo, if reviewing, i would look for places needing expansion). Yob Mod 08:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Yobmod. This should go back to GAN. GAR is for articles that people propose to remove GA status from, or articles that had problematic reviews. I move to close this review and let the initiator renom at GAN as they wish. Dana boomer ( talk) 16:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, there's no need for a GAR here. Renominate at GAN. Geometry guy 19:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, please renominate at GAN. Majoreditor ( talk) 22:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)