- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result: Empole1 appears to have gone inactive without fully resolving the issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GA from 2021. which is definitely very recent, but there looks to be quite a lot of uncited statements including entire uncited paragraphs. So I feel that this needs to be reassessed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist and trout the reviewer for passing it in the first place. – Teratix ₵ 10:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically it met the GA criteria then, but not now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, I was tagged into here as the Wikipedian who initially nominated the article for GA. This was well timed given I came back to Wikipedia for the first time in a while only a couple of days ago!
- I'm more than happy to go through and resolve these issues if possible! From what I gather from the comments from others and my own quick run through, the majority of issues lie in the referencing of the various statements (particularly rules, but generally article-wide.) I'll make a start on this now, but I'd appreciate a more detailed list of focus areas if someone was willing to create one.
- Thanks for letting me know either way, hopefully I'll be able to get the article up to snuff!
- Empole1 (talk) 11:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Improving the referencing would be a good start, you're right that the rules section is where the issues are most acute. – Teratix ₵ 14:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Empole1, do you intend to return to this? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.