Talk:Jesus for President/GA2
GA Reassessment
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article was promotional in nature and covered in unnecessary detail, apparently picking up every article and mention ever of this book and its promotional tour. There was serious concern about this article's author and violation of WP's policies on advocacy. Here is the diff showing all the edits: article was reduced from ~50k to a more reasonable 20k. —МандичкаYO 😜 07:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Wikimandia, it sounds like from what you said above that the article was properly improved. Is it deserving of GA status or not? If not, you should specify what issues remain and ping the various WikiProjects/editors to come in and fix the issues.
- You opened this as an individual GA reassessment, which means you took on the responsibility for conducting the reassessment and making a final decision, though after over nine months of inaction I'll close it as "kept" if you'd rather not proceed further. Thanks for your response. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: I apologize, I only vaguely remember this article. I was trying to get involved more in GA stuff but I haven't done much - I don't think it's deserving of GA status though, looking at it. It seems like just a normal article about a book. What do I need to do here? Thanks. —МандичкаYO 😜 07:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Wikimandia, basically what is needed now is a GA review, checking the article against the GA criteria and pointing out where it falls short. Some GAs are indeed normal articles about a book, but they meet the criteria: well-written, verifiable and without original research, broad in coverage, neutral, stable, and illustrated (where possible) with images. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Meh, I don't care enough about this article to do all that. At least it's no longer a big commercial. So you can close this. Thanks! —МандичкаYO 😜 05:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Wikimandia, basically what is needed now is a GA review, checking the article against the GA criteria and pointing out where it falls short. Some GAs are indeed normal articles about a book, but they meet the criteria: well-written, verifiable and without original research, broad in coverage, neutral, stable, and illustrated (where possible) with images. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: I apologize, I only vaguely remember this article. I was trying to get involved more in GA stuff but I haven't done much - I don't think it's deserving of GA status though, looking at it. It seems like just a normal article about a book. What do I need to do here? Thanks. —МандичкаYO 😜 07:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Closing reassessment
[edit]Per Wikimandia, closing this reassessment as "kept". BlueMoonset (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)