Talk:Ryugyong Hotel/GA3

GA Reassessment

Kept OP did not indicate which GA criteria aren't met, consensus for keep. Closing as the OP has not editing since September. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I believe that the page has several problems which prevents it from being a GA. The subject of the article has major changes in 2016 ("Renewal" section) which should be reviewed. Also, the Guinness World Records source used in the article (https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/tallest-building-unoccupied) now redirects to a Chinese building instead. DutchOff (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "The subject of the article has major changes in 2016 ("Renewal" section) which should be reviewed"? That doesn't convey anything to me...--Jack Upland (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It means that the article has major update of content in 2016 and therefore the new contents should be reviewed as well. The article gets GA before 2016. DutchOff (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I set no store on Wikipedian scores. So, so what?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page no longer says that it is the tallest unfinished building and the content added since 2016 (i.e. the renewal section) seems reasonable so unless there are specific issues that you can identify then I don't see a need to delist. Gusfriend (talk) 10:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @DutchOff:, Do you think the issues have been addressed? if not then feel free to delist. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comments above. Unless DutchOff identifies which GA criteria are no longer met and why, GA status should be kept. New content alone does not automatically mean that the article has fallen below standards. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:58, 16 February 2023 (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.