Talk:Nonviolent Communication/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 04:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC) I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Good article nomination on hold
[edit]This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 10, 2012, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: Passes here. Well written, good stylistic sentence structure and language usage throughout.
- 2. Factually accurate?: Not passing here at this point in time. There are five (5) citation needed tags that need to be addressed promptly please.
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Passes here. Thorough overview of the topic with good sub-levels of discussion.
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Passes here. Written in neutral tone.
- 5. Article stability? Passes here. Per my prior stability review on talk page.
- 6. Images?: Passes here. Per my prior image review on talk page.
Please address issues above soon.
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 02:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Response from GA nominator
posted to talk page of GA Reviewer Thanks for doing the review. I have removed all the Citations Needed tagged text from the article. If it comes back, I will make sure it has proper sources. One of the major bones of contention in the past with this article has been reliability of sources, and so we spent a lot of time going over our sources in great detail. It is a good reminder that text has begun to creep back in that is less well sourced, and we need to stay on top of that. Thanks!Michaplot (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Looks much better, thanks, passes now. — Cirt (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)