Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Club Penguin/1

Club Penguin

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 • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: delist There has been little progress in addressing the concerns raised. Although dead links may be permissible, citations should be verifiable. Citation needed tags need addressing. Prose could do with improving. No strong support that this article meets the GA criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am placing the article for Good article reassessment because it has some serious cleanup and grammar issues and no longer meets GA criteria. My main concern that there are dead links in the article.

Ref 24 is a dead link.
Ref 43 is a dead link.
Ref 47 is a dead link.
Ref 54 and 55 is a dead link.

JJ98 (Talk) 05:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article could do with a decent copy edit. Language is casual in places, and there are a number of single sentence paragraphs. There is also a little too much fluff, so could do with a tighten. I note that the main contributors are keen to continually improve the article, and their energy and enthusiasm is to be commended. I suggest requesting assistance from Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 10:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it looks the article has little improvement, although I see two {{fact}} tags and five dead links in the article. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 09:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with having a handful of dead URLs in citations. WP:DEADREF, which was significantly revised earlier this year, actually prohibits editors from removing them under most circumstances. There has never been a GA criteria that required 100% functional URLs for sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notice, it should be kept pretty soon. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 19:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist The prose is very awkward in some places, and needs a thorough copy-edit by an editor knowledgable about the subject. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:07, 26 June 2011 (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.