Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Robbie Williams/1
- Result: Clear consensus to endorse the quick-fail. No change to articles current status (not currently on the list).
It contains many references. David Pro (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment This was a quickfail that was quickfailed because there was a legitimate clean up tag in the article. Which is still there as of this comment. Quickfails (legitimate ones) are not eligible for good article reassessment because there was no assessment done in the first place. Once the issues are fixed, it needs to be renominated. And "fixed" means more than just removing the tag - it means addressing its concern. Cheers, CP 18:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support quick-fail Clean-up tag, and all the references need to give proper attribution. Drewcifer (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse quick-fail The number of references means nothing. What matters is if they are properly used and formatted. An entire section is unreferenced, and most references are plain HTML links, which is NOT proper format at all. The refs need clean up, in the sense that they need full bibliographic details (authors, dates, publishers, accessdates). --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support quick-fail WP:GAR is not the proper venue; CP's reasoning that "there was no assessment done in the first place" is absolutely correct. Article has a clean-up banner and was (and is), therefore, eligible for quick-fail. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 16:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse quick-fail. Once cleaned up, the article can be renominated. Geometry guy 17:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The reviewer made the right call due to clean-up banner and referencing issues. Endorse quick-fail. Majoreditor (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)