Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted there hasn't been any effort to address these concerns after over a month, and no keep votes have come up in that time either SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Nearly all of the "History" section is one-sentence paragraphs reading "In 199x, blah happened. in 200x, blah happened." Literally 90% of the sentences in history begin with "In [year]".
• Several [citation needed] and [better source needed] in International header.
• Corporate Management also has several "On X, Y happened. On X, Y happened."
• I also feel that too much attention is drawn to contaminant outbreaks, giving the article some WP:UNDUE problems. Well over half the article is on outbreaks. Most of these cases don't seem noteworthy on their own.

The article seems like it might still be salveageable with a copy edit and some trimming of fat. It seems like it's suffering from example creep at the moment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist - I agree with your assessment. There's too much attention to the outbreak section, affecting article neutrality and flow. Probably best to delist for now. L150 17:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Yikes. I don't know if it were like this at all when made GA, but how the mighty have fallen if it truly met the criteria at the time. Maybe delisting it will serve as a wakeup call that when you add things to a good article you shouldn't just dump it in there and hope someone will take care of it for you. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]