Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/B. F. Skinner/1

B. F. Skinner

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: Endorse current status (not listed), but encourage editors to improve the article and renominate! Geometry guy 21:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any explanation on the Discussion page as to why teh article was delisted -- I found one critique that there were not enough sources -- that seems not to be the case anymore. Thanks! Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have been de-listed by Cswrye in December 2006. The article has been tagged for cleanup of a section and lack of citations for one or more sections. Majoreditor (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article isn't currently up to GA standards. There are several citation tags. The biography section is under-referenced. And there are some MoS concerns. Majoreditor (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is MoS? Thanks for your help! We'll get working on getting this article up to snuff! Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MoS stands for the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Majoreditor (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As Skinner was one of my heroes when I was at university, it pains me to say that I have to agree with Majoreditor, this article is not at GA standard, and its delisting was justified I think. There are too many unreferenced sections, and some of the writing is not up to scratch, such as in the Political views section, which is a collection of disjointed short paragraphs. I don't find the article to be well structured either. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok -- I just wanted to make sure that I needed to make changes before I did -- I'll work on getting it up to snuff and bring it back -- is that the correct order of action? Malleus, would you be interested in sort of 'mentoring' me through this procedure?Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on my talk page, but yes, that's the thing to do now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should we close this for the time being, we'll work on it and then re-apply? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]