Talk:Pythia/GA1
GA Reassessment
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS): 
- "It has been suggested", "It has been disputed" by whom - weasel words.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- This article has numerous theories about Pythia, they need references. "Plutarch Moralia 437c)." is a primary non-English source. to support the translation a reference is needed.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- "The experience of supplicants" seems to be an UNDUE
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- A suitable image of Delphi can be inserted. The image with which the article passed GA, is deleted.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of May 29, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)