Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Geyser/1
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 • • GAN review not found
- Result: Kept. charlotte 👸♥ 19:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There is also a "better sources needed" banner from November 2023. Z1720 (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed the "better sources needed" issue by finding reliable sources. Which paragraphs are uncited? Paragraphs in the lede that summarize the article may not need citations, per WP:CITELEAD. — hike395 (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Hike395: I have added cn tags to the article where they are missing. Z1720 (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Z1720: I fixed all of the {{cn}} tags, removed material I could not source, replaced unreliable sources, and cleaned up the references in general. The article looks GA to me at this point: what do you think? — hike395 (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- (not Z1720) @Hike395, good work on this. § Valley of Geysers, Russia has a [quantify] tag which should be fixed before this is kept, and several of the citations in the references section aren't used (you can see which with User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors), which should be moved to a further reading section or removed. Thanks, (please
mention me on reply) charlotte 👸♥ 05:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- (not Z1720) @Hike395, good work on this. § Valley of Geysers, Russia has a [quantify] tag which should be fixed before this is kept, and several of the citations in the references section aren't used (you can see which with User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors), which should be moved to a further reading section or removed. Thanks, (please
- @Z1720: I fixed all of the {{cn}} tags, removed material I could not source, replaced unreliable sources, and cleaned up the references in general. The article looks GA to me at this point: what do you think? — hike395 (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Hike395: I have added cn tags to the article where they are missing. Z1720 (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep, citation concerns resolved, better sources needed banner resolved. Z1720 (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
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.