 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Stourbridge Lion was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. Review: May 23, 2007. |
|
Delisted GA
editThis article has been delisted for failure to meet current GA criteria. Once the article has been brought up to standards, it may be renominated at WP:GAC. If you have any questions regarding this delisting, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Additionally, if you feel this delisting was made in error, you may request remediation at WP:GA/R. Regards, LaraLoveT/C 05:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Might have been more useful for editors if you'd said which criteria it failed! 86.132.138.205 23:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- i believe it's the "no inline references" criteria. too bad that they increase quality standards, but have no process to actually increase quality. how many delisted GA's are there? 1947 Accotink2 talk 13:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not only lack of inline references (isn't it more likely that the lion's face was painted on the front because it had been named "Lion", rather than the other way around?) but the lede was poorly drafted: why use the word "locomotive" six times when once or twice would suffice?--Shantavira|feed me 10:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- i believe it's the "no inline references" criteria. too bad that they increase quality standards, but have no process to actually increase quality. how many delisted GA's are there? 1947 Accotink2 talk 13:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Copyright problem
edit
This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Copyright problem
edit This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 12:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)