Talk:Mount Thielsen/GA2
GA Reassessment
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article does not comply with the good article criterion 1 b) of compliance with Manual of Style guidelines for the Lead in that it not summarizes the article. It contains content that can't be found in the rest of the article. For example, the geography section is quite short but lacks the content which is in the lead. Please improve the article. The lead is too long/has too many paragraphs for how short the article is, as well. Hekerui (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wait, you initiated a GAR for that? Ceranllama chat post 20:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- The lead is the first thing people read and it's kind of central in the GA review. Yes, I think this article should be delisted without a change. As far as I can see, this is the appropriate way to handle this, outlined on the good article page. I didn't do the previous GA review so I'm sorry if that's inconvenient to you but that's what it is. Hekerui (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Why would it be "delisted without a change"? Ceranllama chat post 22:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- If there is no change to the article I think it should be delisted because it fails the GA criteria. One could say "unless a change happens". Did that dispel any lingering confusion? Hekerui (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wrote a 1 paragraph summary lede, moving old material into appropriate sections. —hike395 (talk) 04:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Looks much better now. Hekerui (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wrote a 1 paragraph summary lede, moving old material into appropriate sections. —hike395 (talk) 04:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- If there is no change to the article I think it should be delisted because it fails the GA criteria. One could say "unless a change happens". Did that dispel any lingering confusion? Hekerui (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Why would it be "delisted without a change"? Ceranllama chat post 22:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- The lead is the first thing people read and it's kind of central in the GA review. Yes, I think this article should be delisted without a change. As far as I can see, this is the appropriate way to handle this, outlined on the good article page. I didn't do the previous GA review so I'm sorry if that's inconvenient to you but that's what it is. Hekerui (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)