Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Coropuna/1
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: There is consensus that this entry does meet Wikipedia's good article criteria.StoryKai (talk) 07:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I realize this is a somewhat unusual request. This article was promoted to GA in April 2016 based on a version I wrote. With better developed Wiki skills and with additional sources I just did a total rewrite, with which the version assessed as GA has little in common. Thus the GA star the old version received might not carry over to the current version. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I see no reason why this should lose its Good Article status. Is there any particular aspect of the criteria you are worried about? AIRcorn (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Prose quality, mainly. When I write a lot of text there are often a lot of typos and awkward sentences that are left. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Just because an article is starkly different does not mean there is anything inherently wrong with it. There are no substantial problems I can see which warrant delisting here. What makes a case for delisting is whether it adheres to the GA criteria. If what is wrong with it is prose quality, have you considered sending it to WP:GOCE for potential repairs? dannymusiceditor oops 06:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- Prose quality, mainly. When I write a lot of text there are often a lot of typos and awkward sentences that are left. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I prefer the current version to the one that last passed good article review. The sourcing and writing are certainly of a high quality. I can't imagine why we would delist it.Martinthewriter (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)