The article was removed by Dana boomer 01:01, 30 June 2010 [1].
Half-Life 2 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
The article became featured in 2006, but hasn't really stood the test of time and really needs a major revamp to continue meeting the featured article criteria.-- Vaypertrail ( talk) 15:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply
I'll update you when I get them. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain ( talk) 21:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I would give more examples of problems with the article, but seeing as most of the things I've said haven't been fixed, I don't see much point. So I'm sticking with my belief that it should be delisted.-- Vaypertrail ( talk) 08:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Done.-- Vaypertrail ( talk) 06:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
But other than the above, I think that the referencing, prose and content are now all up to FA standard. I'm leaning toward a keep, but the above really needs to be fixed first. -- mav ( reviews needed) 01:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Closing note - Although extensive work was completed on the article, there are still several outstanding delists. The main editor has not responded to recent posts asking for updates, and the editors voting to delist the article have posted additional concerns that have not been addressed. When this article is brought back to featured article quality, it may be immediately re-nominated at FAC.
Dana boomer (
talk) 01:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
The article was removed by Dana boomer 01:01, 30 June 2010 [1].
Half-Life 2 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
The article became featured in 2006, but hasn't really stood the test of time and really needs a major revamp to continue meeting the featured article criteria.-- Vaypertrail ( talk) 15:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply
I'll update you when I get them. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain ( talk) 21:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I would give more examples of problems with the article, but seeing as most of the things I've said haven't been fixed, I don't see much point. So I'm sticking with my belief that it should be delisted.-- Vaypertrail ( talk) 08:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Done.-- Vaypertrail ( talk) 06:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
But other than the above, I think that the referencing, prose and content are now all up to FA standard. I'm leaning toward a keep, but the above really needs to be fixed first. -- mav ( reviews needed) 01:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Closing note - Although extensive work was completed on the article, there are still several outstanding delists. The main editor has not responded to recent posts asking for updates, and the editors voting to delist the article have posted additional concerns that have not been addressed. When this article is brought back to featured article quality, it may be immediately re-nominated at FAC.
Dana boomer (
talk) 01:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
reply