Talk:Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||
|
Rewrite
editI'm not completely satisfied with this article at the moment, so I'll be doing a major revamp of it over the next few days. Until then, consider it a work in progress. - I.M.S. (talk)
- Comment made 04:41, 7 April 2010
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930191916/http://www.blender.com/guide/reviews.aspx?id=3840 to http://www.blender.com/guide/reviews.aspx?id=3840
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
GA Reassessment
editThe 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 • • Most recent review
- Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
A 2009 GA that no longer meets the criteria in its current state. Filled with sourcing issues (such as IMDb), poor prose, a section that has had an expansion tag for two years, unreferenced sections (personnel), among others. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks zmbro. I sourced the personnel section, but I cannot see myself working on this article. Anything after Village Green carries no interest for me. Speaking of which, Arthur probably does not deserve to be a FA at this point (it was promoted back in 2010). Tkbrett (✉) 17:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah I completely agree. If you wanna post some FA concerns on the talk page to get the process started I'd say go for it. Otherwise I can do it when I get back from vacation next week. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)