- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result: Procedural close. No need for reassessment when renomination is preferable. Geometry guy 09:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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).YobMod 08:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Yes, there's no need for a GAR here. Renominate at GAN. Geometry guy 19:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]