Misplaced Pages

:Good article reassessment: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:10, 19 February 2007 view sourceHomestarmy (talk | contribs)9,996 edits →[]← Previous edit Revision as of 22:57, 19 February 2007 view source General Idea (talk | contribs)609 edits →Articles needing reviewing (add new articles at the top)Next edit →
Line 71: Line 71:
<!-- But don't even think about adding a new article below his line until you've added a notice on the relevant article's talk page. See text above --> <!-- But don't even think about adding a new article below his line until you've added a notice on the relevant article's talk page. See text above -->
<!-- And when a discussion is over, there are archives that reviews should go into.--> <!-- And when a discussion is over, there are archives that reviews should go into.-->
===]===
While a number of critiques of the Manifesto are listed in the articles external links there's been no effort made to express any criticisms within the article itself until today when I added one line. This is not sufficient and the article needs to be balanced for NPOV purposes. ] 22:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


===]=== ===]===

Revision as of 22:57, 19 February 2007

Shortcut
  • ]

The Good article review page is a place where Wikipedians discuss if Good article listed articles still merits their good article status, contesting former GA's that someone may think was improperly delisted, or request feedback on articles that have not yet been promoted.

Articles on this list are graded against the good article criteria in which an article is checked to be at the GA-Class grade on the article assessment scale. It is not necessary to go through this process unless there is a dispute about the article's status. This is not a Peer Review Process, for that see Misplaced Pages:Peer Review.

If you believe an article should be delisted

If you find an article listed as good that does not actually satisfy the good article criteria, then you can delist it:

  1. Check that you have logged in, anons may not delist articles.
  2. Check the good article criteria to see which criteria it fails to meet.
  3. If the problem is easy to resolve, it might be better to be bold and fix it yourself.
  4. If you can't fix it, leave a message in the article's talk page stating the problem(s). If possible, put appropriate maintenance template(s) on the article's page. See Category:Misplaced Pages maintenance templates.
  5. Allow enough time for any active editors to improve the article.
  6. If the problem(s) is not resolved, remove the {{GA}} tag on the article's talk page and put in its place {{DelistedGA|27 December 2024}}. Do not use {{FailedGA}}.
  7. Remember to explain what the problem is and what needs to be improved to meet the criteria.
  8. Remove the article from the list at Misplaced Pages:Good articles.

If you find an article that you suspect should be delisted, but aren't certain, then you can ask other editors to review the situation by adding the article to the list below. Please check that you have logged in, notify the editors in the article's talk page that it is under review, and provide a link to the GA Review page before listing the article here.

If you believe an article should be listed

If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, it's best not to just take the article back to the nominations page straight away.

  1. Read why the article was judged to fail the criteria: there should be an explanatory note on its talk page.
  2. If you can fix the article to address those concerns, and satisfy the good article criteria, you can just renominate it: there is no minimum time limit between nominations!
  3. However, if you believe that the explanation given was unreasonable, and that the article does fulfil all the requirements, then you can ask other editors to review it by adding it the list below. A brief discussion should be sufficient to establish consensus on whether the criteria are met, and whether it should be re-listed as a Good Article.


Archive
Archives
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14

Articles needing reviewing (add new articles at the top)

Note: Please remember to put a note on the article's talk page informing editors that it has been brought to WP:GA/R for review and possible delisting of its Good Article status. Include ] in the section heading.

Euston Manifesto

While a number of critiques of the Manifesto are listed in the articles external links there's been no effort made to express any criticisms within the article itself until today when I added one line. This is not sufficient and the article needs to be balanced for NPOV purposes. General Idea 22:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

English language

I believe this article no longer meets GA criteria, as it it not factually correct or verifiable. Many sections currently have citation needed tags, while others have the entire sections tagged as missing or needing citations. It's clear that statements that may be questioned are not properly cited. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Too many unreferenced parts, Delist. Homestarmy 16:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Dragons of Winter Night

I'll come out and say I wrote most of this article in its current form, and if that fact prevents a GAR request from me, I apologize, but I strongly feel it was not reviewed very well. Upon failing, the reviewer gave me a two statement review, one statement of which I have no idea what he's talking about, and the second of which I also don't get because I can't cut anything else from the Plot Summary.

In addition, I might add that the reviewer didn't follow standards, in that they did not place a section header on the talk page, and in their signature there was no link to their userpage, making it a slight inconvenience to contact them.

Maybe I'm POV on this. Maybe I'm just a pissed off egomaniac :) But I'd really like a second assessment, and if it still fails, better comments. Thank you! DoomsDay349 23:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it could use another review. I doubt you have to go through this page to get permission to have it re-added to the candidate page. However, someone not dedicated to the article should be the one putting it on the candidate page. Hopefully the next reviewer will be a bit more precise. You could have also used the original reviewer's talk page to ask for more information. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Jumbo blocks of text? Plot summaries do tend to have plenty of text in them, Relist to Candidates. Homestarmy 03:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Peter Roskam

This article, in my opinion, had some very serious NPOV and BLP concerns because it contained too much criticism. The ruling to deny "Good Article" status was astonishing. The claim was that too much criticism had been removed. This article, about a freshman Congressman with one month of service, was still longer and contained more criticism than the article about Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House with 20 years of service, and the article about Dan Burton, a controversial Congressman with 24 years of service. On Election Day alone, there were over a dozen edits and the version from that day I chose to submit to a word count had over 6,300 words. (Dan Burton's article has 650.)

This particular article has attracted a lot of attention because Roskam's 2006 race was described in the media as "the most closely watched race in the House." His opponent was Tammy Duckworth, the darling of the anti-war left, who lost both legs in Iraq and came back to run for Congress out of her own district. I suspect that a lot of Duckworth campaign rhetoric found its way into this article. There were about 120 edits to the article in the week ending November 7.

At this point I've gone over it with a chainsaw and Propol and Tbeatty then went over it with a scalpel and a pair of tweezers. Propol has been exemplary, alleviating any NPOV doubts I once had about him. It's now under 3,000 words for the first time in about a year. I would appreciate it if a few "fresh pairs of eyes" would look it over. Thanks. Dino 15:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedy relist to candidate page, failing editor is a signifigant contributor to the article, (press the next button a few times on the article history) and I don't see an actual review. Editors who have signifigiantly contributed to an article shouldn't pass or fail it it as per the rules, conflict of interests and whatnot, probably would get messy. (Not that there couldn't be any IAR moments for that kind of thing, but this isn't such a moment I think) Homestarmy 15:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. (What is an "IAR moment"?) Dino 17:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
See IAR --rogerd 18:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

George W. Bush

This article was passed as a GA today, but I have major reservations with an (almost permanently) semi-protected article that is still hammered with vandalism passing GAC, as I don't see how it meets the "Stable" criteria. --PresN 03:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As a contributor to that article and one who frequently reverts vandalism on it, I share your reservations. I am puzzled as to why the article was promoted to GA status given its inherent instability. That the article is continuously semi-protected seems to be bona fide evidence of instability. --ElKevbo 03:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • 5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content. M3tal H3ad 11:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Are we talking about the same article? --ElKevbo 13:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I just see lots of vandalism, nothing like content instability. I think this should be Kept unless someone spots some other problem, though I do think this article could use summary style a bit more effectively in many sections to shorten them. Homestarmy 14:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree that this article is a Good Article. I hope that it will become one at some point but it's not very well-written and is unstable, IMHO. --ElKevbo 17:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I am the one who reviewed it. My comments are available on its talk page. It has now been put under review due to the argument that criteria number 5 (stability), from WP:WIAGA was not met. If you read that guideline carefully, pages that are consistently protected due to vandalism are exempt from this guideline. I read all of the comments on the talk page and there were no ongoing edit wars, and the article as I reviewed it passed GA criteria. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Withdraw (Can I even do that?) While I disagree with the exemption, as it means that a lot of random people are going to see that a "good article" includes pictures of Bush as Hitler, and that he apparently is gay, Nja247 is correct that WP:WIAGA says that (rampant and nonstop) vandalism doesn't count as unstable, so I suppose I have to rescind my review nomination. GA it is. --PresN 07:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: Don't you think it is unfair to hold it against an article that it gets vandalised alot? I don't think we should give vandals this privilege.... I think you can withdraw your review, but before archiving it I think we should make sure that everyone had their say. / Fred-Chess 19:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • keep but I do have an issue with the presidency and domestic policy sections not even have summaries fo the main articles. Rlevse 03:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • DelistSumoeagle179 12:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Flying Spaghetti Monster

This article currently contains several self-published sources. As I understand WP:RS these are inappropriate for use on Misplaced Pages. Specifically, any reference back to http://www.venganza.org/ (3 of them in total) would only be appropriate if the article was about Bobby Henderson. Since the article is about the Flying Spaghetti Monster (presumably the FSM did not write the text at venganza.org) and not Bobby Henderson I think these references are invalid. They may belong on the Bobby Henderson article, but not this one. Further, there is a reference to blogger.com that is clearly not a RS. Others are questionable as well.MikeURL 23:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you reread WP:RS and hopefully this time you will see that according to the rules these are OK in certain circumstances. Sophia 13:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion and I have reread WP:RS. There is nothing there to suggest that the self-published website venganza.org is a reliable source for the article Flying Spaghetti Monster. Venganza.org would probably would be fine for the Bobby Henderson article.MikeURL 20:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
You obviously missed this bit . Sophia 00:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I did read it and my comment above specifically addresses it. I don't think the part you linked to applies because the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't write the text at venganza.MikeURL 01:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

United States Declaration of Independence

I call for a review of this item due to heavy vandalism on the 'Future Signings' section of this Misplaced Pages article.

Surely this can't be left as it is when on the subject of probable one of the most famous sections of American history?

Um, articles don't lose "good" or "featured" status if they are vandalized (there probably wouldn't be any if that wasn't true). –Llama man 21:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep Vandalism is not a reason to delist the article. If there are issues with vandalism, consider requesting protection from an administrator. As long as an article is within the criteria for a GA article, it should remain one. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC) fail but cite needed tags, non-standards refs, inconsistent refs, bad footnote format, and lack of enough refs is.Rlevse 03:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Cullacabardee, Western Australia

The review left at Cullacabardee, Western Australia

Good Evening (GMT time); I have concluded that, in my opinion, the article has failed one or more categories and is therefore denied GA status. In order to provide constructive criticism, I have below listed one or more of my reasons for failing the article, beside the relevant criteria title; this should be taken as advice for improvement, rather than a list of reasons for failing.

  1. Well-written: Pass
  2. Factually accurate: Pass
  3. Broad: Pass
  4. Neutrally written: Pass
  5. Stable: Pass
  6. Well-referenced: Pass
  7. Images: Fail

My condolences to the lead editors - your hard work has been informally recognised; just keep it up, and do not be disheartened!

Kindest regards,
Anthonycfc 22:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Section 6(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status. Gnangarra 03:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • with their domestic appliances, missing a full-stop. Works's website does not mention any impending action. External jump in the text. But as stated above images do not prevent it from getting GA, if the reviewer believes it meets the criteria, pass. M3tal H3ad 07:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The geography section could use expansion, where it is in relation to some roads doesn't say much about the environment and stuff :/. I guess that's in the introduction though, but you'd think the intro wouldn't be more detailed than the geography section concerning geography... Homestarmy 13:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, I think that the image requirement is especially designed for this sorts of articles, where images should be well possible to attain, and would significantly add something to the article. A map would also be helpful. / Fred-Chess 12:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Images arent well possible as both the housing and telecommunication areas are restricted access. Gnangarra 15:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Re issues raised:
Re: Images. Gnangarra: If the area is restricted access, I fully understand the difficulty of getting images. But I would just like a clarification about this issue. The lead says: "Most of the suburb is covered in native sheoak and banksia forest. A small Noongar Aboriginal community is based on Baal Street, a drug rehabilitation retreat is located off Gnangara Road in the suburb's northeast ". Is it not possible to get images from the forest, the aboriginal community, the only public road (Baal Street), or the drug rehab? / Fred-Chess 16:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll try for a forest photo tomorrow around the back (i.e. Whiteman Park) end of the suburb Orderinchaos78 03:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Next time I will avoid making a statement like the above. I'm convinced some deity saw this and jinxed the weather. :) Orderinchaos78 23:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Un-Fail, the main issues besides the image appears to be addressed. The "in this respect" phrasing of the image criteria seems to imply that the criteria depends on the three things below, and since one of those three things is that lack of images does not itself exclude being a GA, i'm inclined to think that they wouldn't be necessary here. Besides, it has a satellite map image now. Homestarmy 18:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • fail but for different reasons, such as there has to be more to this community such as climate, government, educational system, major employers etc. THere has to be more than the geography, aboriginies, and telecomms.Rlevse 03:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • comment I am amazed that Rlevse wants this information about a community with a population of 95. / Fred-Chess 09:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Commment I tend to agree with Rlevse, but I think he probably didn't notice it only had 95 people and compared it to a standard city article. I tend to agree with him that the article just makes me sense there are pieces missing. Sumoeagle179 12:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Peloponnesian War

I usually don't disagree with GA failures, but this is one I must contest. The article was placed on hold for about 4-5 days because the reviewer stated that it needed more in-line citations. User:YankeeDoodle14 carried out almost all of his instructions the day after it was placed on hold. About 3 days later, the reviewer comes back and fails the article because "none of his instructions had been carried out." I'm sorry, but I do think that this article deserves GA status. Diez2 16:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose GA My review, it generally started out well but the following sections contain no references; The "Archidamian War", Peace of Nicias, Sicilian Expedition, The Second War, Athens recovers, Lysander triumphs, Athens surrenders, Aftermath. That's a total of 29 paragraphs with no references. Imo the reviewer did the right thing failing the article, and you should respond to the reviewer when an issue is dealt with. M3tal H3ad 10:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
How should I re-word it? I oppose the failure of the article's GA status. Diez2 16:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
last sentence says you don't think it deserves GA status. M3tal H3ad 06:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
In my dictionary, "do" is the opposite of "don't"...? / Fred-Chess 12:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Haha i read it wrong, what a smart dictionary! :) M3tal H3ad 12:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Harvard Glee Club

The editor who reviewed it did provide some constructive comments, but all of his issues were beyond the scope of GA criteria (for example, the footnotes are not all formatted the same, and there are a couple of paragraphs that are just one sentence.) He was correct to point such things out, but I believe the article clearly meets the stated GA criteria.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 09:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes yes, it is on my to-do list, but nonetheless it is not a reason to "fail" the article. The article has many reliable, nontrivial sources that are inline cited; it just happens that at the moment they are not all perfectly formatted.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You haven't fixed the things i mentioned, to add to them, Musical tradition is four paragraphs and has one reference, per Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (headings) sections should not repeat the article title, it had a {{More sources}} tag when i reviewed it, one sentence paragraphs are a problem. References are a problem theres a weblink under the reference section, inconsistent format, "Recent summer tours have included trips to East Asia (1993)" don't think 14 years ago is recent. You can't expect any article to get GA, it needs work to get there, if you implemented my suggestions it would get it. M3tal H3ad 08:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Affirm Fail Good articles are supposed to be better than the average wikipedia article. Not all articles considered can be allowed; in fact only .1% of wikipedia articles are "good articles".
I'd definately work on the article and follow the recommendation of the original reviewer and others here, and also complete your "to-do" list. After that, if you're confident that it is exceptionally good -- re-submit it. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Beeching Axe

Warned by me in December regarding lack of inline cites. Delist. LuciferMorgan 03:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Question What do you mean by "warn", you warn the individual who wrote it, nominated it, or passed it? or you warned the article? where do you "warn"? Wooyi 21:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Just as "It must be realised that not all of the railway lines listed for closure were closed; a number were kept open for a variety of reasons, including political manoeuvring", it must also be realized that commanding readers to do something isn't a very good way to write an encyclopedia, Delist. Also, I know British spelling is a bit weird sometimes, but i'm having trouble swallowing "manoeuvring", is that really how its spelled? Homestarmy 03:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is the correct spelling. Delist RHB 23:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Would anyone object if I WP:SNOWed this? I think the outcome is a bit obvious. Homestarmy 20:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Obi-Wan Kenobi

Progress:Awaiting consensus to be reached

Hardly any sources. Chaldean 03:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Just because the sources aren't in-line, doesn't mean they are not there. Cbrown1023 17:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • OMG. That's way too many navboxes...but...anyway, a list of refs at the bottom is no longer enough, and GAs now require in-line citations (I don't think they did back when this was promoted, though). Hbdragon88 23:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Further comments. The list of Expanded Universe appearances needs to be cut down; it's written in an entirely in-universe perspective. It should ideally be put in prose and paragraph form. Two images aren't sourced and they don't have fair use rationales. I also think that this article could use less images - you only need one cartoon image, he doesn't change that much from Ep. II to Ep. III, and the one with Luke and Kneobi seems just kind of randomly there instead of illustrating his appearance. Hbdragon88 23:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Is this a 2 to 1 or 2 to 0, I can't tell if Cbrown thinks this article should be a GA or not :/. Homestarmy 14:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • In-line citations have been required for awhile now, so I think we can count out Cbrown's vote. Hbdragon88 23:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Just to clarify: The inline citation criteria was recently reformulated (due to massive complaints) and inline citations are no longer mandatory, but they are "highly desirable" and they are required for anything that is "disputed or likely to be disputed". You can see the criterias on WP:WIAGA.
      • Regarding fictional characters, the sources are generally primary sources in the form of movies, books or magazines. I don't think there is any guideline on fictional characters yet (cmp Misplaced Pages:Scientific citation guidelines). Homestarmy recently commented that movie plots are difficult to inline reference, so because there is yet no guideline on this, I don't think we should be overly zealous... For example, the section Attack of the clones starts with "Ten years later, in Attack of the Clones, Kenobi has become an experienced Jedi Knight. " It is clear what the reference of this section is! I don't think it warrants an inline citation. I would say pass GA for this article because I think the article is very interesting and well written, but there is still issues that have to be attended to, including the fair use images. / Fred-Chess 16:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • delist no where near enough refs and too listy.Rlevse 03:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • DelistSumoeagle179 12:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The Public Enemy

Progress: Awaiting consensus. Many comments, though only 5 saying to remove or keep. Currently 3 remove/2 keep.

Too short and not enough sources. Chaldean 02:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I dunno about this one, plot sections are generally never sourced, (I mean, what can someone do, find the timestamps in a movie where something happens? :/) and the other stuff doesn't seem that bad, some movies just aren't as famous or notable as others. Homestarmy 03:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The point of GA is for short articles of FA quality. Wiki-newbie 11:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh? The Beatles article is ex-FA and around 10,000 characters long. It is in the listings below. LessHeard vanU 22:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
That's why it's a long nomination. Look at the Candidates page please, in reference to Chaldean's objection. Wiki-newbie 18:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment, this is a rather obscure movie. Can you mention any more reliable sources than those used? / Fred-Chess 16:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep there is no reason to remove, all reason listed above are trivial. No articles can be perfect, but this one clearly does meet criteria. Wooyi 16:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to tip this towards a consensus and say Keep. The article fits the criteria as far as I can tell and agree the reasons given are trivial. We'll give it a couple of days before archiving to see if anyone comes out with a fantastic reason to say otherwise. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Death In June

Progress:Awaiting consensus to be reached

For starters, the band's name should be "Death in June", and this error is present in the entire article. There are also no citations (instead there are a bunch of external link jumps), and external link farm. Article was warned by Agne last September.

Question when you guys put up a review here, what do you mean "warned" by XXX, do you mean the article is "warned" or the author is "warned", and what exactly the "warning"? Wooyi 16:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone normally posts a note on article talk pages telling them their failing some GA criteria or that the article is up for review, though sometimes people forget. Homestarmy 22:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Teemu08 21:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Death In June is regularly spelled "Death In June," as it is the name of a group. There's no apparent consensus as to how it is spelled as the font is generally bolded but Pearce has used both ways. I can clarify with him regarding this. Everything is cited with external link jumps and I was told it was optional to include them as footnotes. Has this changed? :bloodofox: 21:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please use Template:Cite web to cite internet sources. If in fact that is the correct capitalization of the band's name, then there are still a few instances of "Death in June" appearing in the article. Also, I noticed that there are no fair use rationales for any of the images on the page. Given that the band is fairly recent, there should probably be a free image available somewhere. Teemu08 21:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I have fixed the spelling and cut the link farm. The images are all promotional images available to media for promotional purposes and used to illustrate the sections where appropriate by content. This excludes the album covers which are tagged as such and used to display symbolism. I will go through and add the citation tags as well after I take a look at the process - assuming someone doesn't beat me to it. :bloodofox: 00:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I have merged the smaller paragraphs into larger sections as requested. :bloodofox: 12:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this a no consensus vote, or is Bloodofox not really supporting the article as a GA per se? Homestarmy 13:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)