Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result:

Delisted per subpar layout and referencing Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC) There are too many maintenance tags (such as {{fact}}) for this to be a good article. It meets one of the Immediate failures criteria.--Proud User (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist You're right, I also have a few other issues.
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
  • Please don't have citations in the lead
  • Some points have too many cites.
  • Some refs can be expanded
  • To many dls.
  • Too many one sentence paragraphs
  • Inconsistence: "NY Times" and "New York Times"
  • A few fair use rationales could be expanded.
  • "no evil philosophy", "anticorporate", this is un-neutral
  • "no evil" – "no-evil"
  • Put citations after punctuation.