| Revision as of 17:27, 12 June 2008 editGosgood (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,456 edits →GA: Disagree with this action.← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:33, 13 June 2008 edit undoGosgood (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,456 edits →GA: Review announcementNext edit → | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| # In light of that, it should remain on queue until such time that an editor can evaluate the article fully in connection with the ] and render a decision in accordance with those criteria. | # In light of that, it should remain on queue until such time that an editor can evaluate the article fully in connection with the ] and render a decision in accordance with those criteria. | ||
| Simply removing an article from the nomination queue for a reason that has not been established as a quick-fail criterion is irregular, which has a knock on effect on the trustworthiness of the Good Article nomination and evaluation process. I've made further remarks ]. ] has opened a ] page as well. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. ] (]) 17:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC) | Simply removing an article from the nomination queue for a reason that has not been established as a quick-fail criterion is irregular, which has a knock on effect on the trustworthiness of the Good Article nomination and evaluation process. I've made further remarks ]. ] has opened a ] page as well. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. ] (]) 17:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| === GA Review of Sphinx Head === | |||
| Following the discussion on the ], there is general agreement that a misunderstanding has taken place, that articles should depart from the nomination queue only after an evaluation has taken place and has been published on a subpage. I am undertaking that review now. Accordingly, I am taking the extraordinary steps of reverting ]'s edits to restore the {{tl|GA nominee}} template and establish a review page, which will be transcluded to this section here. Apologies to the editors awaiting an evaluation for so long now. Thank you for your patience. ] (]) 15:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:33, 13 June 2008
.svg){kind=small} |
The good article status of this article is being reassessed by an individual editor to determine if the article meets the good article criteria. Please add comments to the reassessment page, but the decision to list the article as a good article should be left to the editor initiating this reassessment.
|
 | Sphinx Head was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 12, 2008). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | Secret Societies (inactive) | |||
| ||||
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 15 May 2006. The result of the discussion was delete. |
| This article was nominated for deletion on 9 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
I dont understand why this article would be considered for deletion. If you have any suggestions for how to make it better please post them here. Cornell1890 (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- The biggest issue I would see for this article is the list of notable alumni. If you look at some of the pages regarding freemasonry, and its appendant/concordant bodies, we have tried to limit those lists to only a very few, specifically looking at those who are notable because of their membership, or their activities which relate to their membership in the group.--Vidkun (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
New York Times reference
Can a single remark in a 541 word article appearing over 79 years ago in the New York Times be construed as a basis for that paper's endorsement: 'recognized by The New York Times as "the highest non-scholastic honor within reach of undergraduates.'? I do not think this citation in a very old article can be construed as any sort of endorsement that the current day paper would undertake about the current day society. And while I pray that this article's wait in the Good Article nomination queue will be considerably shorter than 79 years, I do hope that editors will make use of intervening time to consider how well such references work. In addition, I find that the very comprehensive, and apparently very carefully referenced, list of notable alumni detracts from the article. In my opinion, the list as a whole plunges into considerably greater detail about just one facet of the society — notable alumni — than what other facets explored by the article do. The list is about an invigorating a read as a telephone directory. In light of this, please consider the Manual of Style Embedded list guideline; a paragraph of clear prose far outweighs an exhaustive, even exhaustively referenced, list, which is a mechanical communication effort at best – my humble opinion, of course. Gosgood (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
GA
I've remove the article from WP:GAN because it is more of a list than an article. If you want to, you can nominate it at WP:FLC.
- I disagree with this.
- The article was nominated in good faith.
- It has been in the queue for a long time
- It does not obviously quick-fail.
- In light of that, it should remain on queue until such time that an editor can evaluate the article fully in connection with the good article criteria and render a decision in accordance with those criteria.
Simply removing an article from the nomination queue for a reason that has not been established as a quick-fail criterion is irregular, which has a knock on effect on the trustworthiness of the Good Article nomination and evaluation process. I've made further remarks here. EyeSerene has opened a Good article review page as well. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Gosgood (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
GA Review of Sphinx Head
Following the discussion on the Good Article Reassessment page, there is general agreement that a misunderstanding has taken place, that articles should depart from the nomination queue only after an evaluation has taken place and has been published on a subpage. I am undertaking that review now. Accordingly, I am taking the extraordinary steps of reverting EyeSerene's edits to restore the {{GA nominee}} template and establish a review page, which will be transcluded to this section here. Apologies to the editors awaiting an evaluation for so long now. Thank you for your patience. Gosgood (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Categories: