| Revision as of 23:16, 24 December 2024 editPatrick Welsh (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions5,416 editsm →Teleological argument← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:19, 1 January 2025 edit undoAirshipJungleman29 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors43,956 edits close GAR Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Teleological argument/1 as delist (GANReviewTool) | ||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| {{atopr}} | |||
| : {{al|Teleological argument|noname=yes}} • <span class="plainlinksneverexpand"></span> • ] | : {{al|Teleological argument|noname=yes}} • <span class="plainlinksneverexpand"></span> • ] | ||
| : <span>{{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Good article reassessment/Teleological argument/1|]}} '''Result''': Delisted.</span> ] (]) 16:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)<br/> | |||
| : {{GAR/current}}<br/> | |||
| There is uncited prose in the article, and another editor on the talk page mentioned that the article is missing key information because of underdeveloped sections. ] (]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | There is uncited prose in the article, and another editor on the talk page mentioned that the article is missing key information because of underdeveloped sections. ] (]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment'''. I guess I am the other editor? I don't see any posts using the words you've used. I would encourage other editors to read my real remarks. But in a nutshell, in terms of what I understand to be important for GA status I think this article has never yet reached a stable structure. It is still in a phase where people add new "stub" sections, and are likely to send the article in new directions, which might become stable. I'd encourage any editors who are interested in the topic to see what they can do, but I doubt that the article was ever really at GA quality, and I don't think that getting that label too early is necessarily a good thing.--] (]) 19:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | *'''Comment'''. I guess I am the other editor? I don't see any posts using the words you've used. I would encourage other editors to read my real remarks. But in a nutshell, in terms of what I understand to be important for GA status I think this article has never yet reached a stable structure. It is still in a phase where people add new "stub" sections, and are likely to send the article in new directions, which might become stable. I'd encourage any editors who are interested in the topic to see what they can do, but I doubt that the article was ever really at GA quality, and I don't think that getting that label too early is necessarily a good thing.--] (]) 19:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Support''': Per @]'s posts to the talk page. Even if citations could be produced where needed, the article lacks a cohesive structure. In particular it would benefit from an introductory "Definition" section describing the topic in general terms and distinguishing it from other major arguments for the existence of god. An "Overview" section might also be helpful—depending upon how much can make it into the lead.] (]) 23:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | *'''Support''': Per @]'s posts to the talk page. Even if citations could be produced where needed, the article lacks a cohesive structure. In particular it would benefit from an introductory "Definition" section describing the topic in general terms and distinguishing it from other major arguments for the existence of god. An "Overview" section might also be helpful—depending upon how much can make it into the lead.] (]) 23:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Comment'''{{snd}}I have interest in this article, but no promises in getting dug in before it gets delisted. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 08:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Delist''' While the lack of citations is certainly an issue, I think the bigger problem is the fact that it's structure is incoherent, making it hard to read. I think it should be re-written a bit. Also the fact of it's instability makes it further from meeting GA criteria. ] (]) 13:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
Latest revision as of 16:19, 1 January 2025
Teleological argument
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: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
There is uncited prose in the article, and another editor on the talk page mentioned that the article is missing key information because of underdeveloped sections. Z1720 (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. I guess I am the other editor? I don't see any posts using the words you've used. I would encourage other editors to read my real remarks. But in a nutshell, in terms of what I understand to be important for GA status I think this article has never yet reached a stable structure. It is still in a phase where people add new "stub" sections, and are likely to send the article in new directions, which might become stable. I'd encourage any editors who are interested in the topic to see what they can do, but I doubt that the article was ever really at GA quality, and I don't think that getting that label too early is necessarily a good thing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support: Per @Andrew Lancaster's posts to the talk page. Even if citations could be produced where needed, the article lacks a cohesive structure. In particular it would benefit from an introductory "Definition" section describing the topic in general terms and distinguishing it from other major arguments for the existence of god. An "Overview" section might also be helpful—depending upon how much can make it into the lead.Patrick (talk) 23:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment – I have interest in this article, but no promises in getting dug in before it gets delisted. Remsense ‥ 论 08:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delist While the lack of citations is certainly an issue, I think the bigger problem is the fact that it's structure is incoherent, making it hard to read. I think it should be re-written a bit. Also the fact of it's instability makes it further from meeting GA criteria. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 13:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)