Knowledge:Good article reassessment/Archive 25

190:- While I understand the objections to the use of page numbers for lack of quotations and paraphrasing, (from my experience and understanding) a lack of page numbers is only acceptable when you're using the reference as an example of supporting a POV. In the case of this article, specific information is being pulled from the books to verify details. Regardless, the article seems under-referenced to me. How is it known where the palace was located, for example? You generally want to see no less than one reference per paragraph, but the history section, in particular, seems lacking. Are there no online sources available? If there are, that may be the easiest solution to the referencing problem which, for me, is the biggest issue. I also dislike the sandwiching of text between images which is discouraged by the manual of style regarding images, however, this is not inlcuded in the GA criteria. 2770:- The delistment was not necessarily outside of procedure. I mean, it was, but it's a recommended procedure, not required. It is common practice for articles that clearly fail to meet the criteria, and conceivably lack potential to be quickly brought up to standards, to be boldly delisted. In these cases, an explanation of the delistment with supporting reasons should be left on the article talk page. With that said, I've not yet reviewed the article, so I don't know that it would fall under the fore-mentioned category of those which "clearly fail to meet the criteria". However, if it is determined that the article should not have been delisted, it will then regain its GA status... after consensus has been reached. I'll add my recommendation and supporting argument tomorrow as my forehead is about two minutes from slamming into my keyboard... I really need to stop editing until 3am. 238:- The difference between this and the Sunbeam article is that this one does not rely on only one source. However, each citation in that article was to a different subpage of the same website. Past that, there is a template that allows you to cite the same reference multiple times changing only the page number. The reflist would remain the same as it is now, only where the letters appear now to indicate individual citations, page numbers would appear beside those letters. I don't remember the template off the top of my head (I should have added it to my subpage), but I can find it, if not for this article, for future reference. Last, it is a GA criterion that the article be adequately referenced and contain no OR. Although, I will give you, I tend to be more strict on this than others, which is why I threw in the "weak". 3136:, designing an arc of narrative around that decision, and omitting detail which obscures the narrative arc. One editor made reference to the parable of the Man, the Boy, and the Donkey, the essence being that an attempt to please everyone pleases no one. From this phenomenon I think the article suffers. There is much in here present to satisfy many esoteric debates. The goal of the article should be to introduce a particular fraternal organization to a curious reader who knows almost nothing at all about it. That goal dictates the limiting of detail beyond what is suitable for an introduction. Concerning balance, There seems very little orchestrated commentary about Freemasonry's impact on the society at large, and society's reaction to this particular organization. For example, the 794:

single reference on most topics actually adequately covers the subject, unless the reference is basically the acknowledged end-all be-all concerning a subject or the equivalent of one. What's in this article now may be well-referenced, but with material derived only from a single source, unless someone can justify why this source on its own is likely giving a nearly comprehensive look on the subject, I think it is better for this article to not be a GA. I also can't tell exactly who has created the webpage the reference is from, the bottom just names a "Keith Adams", and there doesn't seem to be an about page describing this website, (Following some links makes it out to be some sort of enthusiasts website) I question its reliability.

2594:- It hurts me to recommend that, because this article is really quite good, but it does not meet the standards in regards to citation. Personally, I think the article is GA based on the images alone! Ha. Okay, not really, but I thought this article was great. Boys... so funny. Anyway, there is an abundance of original research. That's about the only major issue I found. Minor things: There needs to be a consistency in the capitalization of "Beer pong". Is it "Beer Pong", "Beer pong", or "beer pong"? And if it's "beer pong", then shouldn't "Beirut" be "beirut"? I was going to fix this, but I'm not sure how it should be. Also, references need to be consistently formatted. This is something I will probably correct myself. 2870:- While I don't want to sound self-justifying, the issues regarding NPOV are coming about because assumptions are being made about types of sources existing when they do not. Much of the material is not scholarly in the "university press" way, but much of it is peer-reviewed by the publishers of the Transactions for the society, while the NPOV issue seems to be "Masons wrote it". While Masonry is not a religion, it has a similar amount of internal documents and books, yet I see no one complaining about not using Jewish sources on the Catholic Church as POV, for the same reason as here being that they don't really exist, because it's not a matter of interest except on very specific issues. 1250:. It's been around for a long time, has a checking system, the only thing we could say is that it is not linked to a commercial site, and that's a plus if you ask me. I guess hethe editor could use different sources for a few things, like the explanation of the sunbeam name, but if the first source is reliable... However, I am not convinced by the broad coverage of the article. It doesn't say much about the interior, doesn't use the long quote from Autocar magazine provided in its primary source, doesn't say how many Lotus and Ti were built(see 3237:- This article is in desperate need of a rewrite. Repetitive and over-written. The vocabulary of this article does not match the complexity of the topic. It's to the point that, at least in my case, not only does the article not draw the reader in, it distracts the reader leaving them disinterested. It's also not completely accurate. It reads as if it must be "played" on a bridge, which is not the case. Even the 12-line quote lacks mention of a bridge. One comparison after the other with variations sprinkled between. I can't finish it. 569:- I find it to be inappropriate to rely on one source for an article. Although there are three references, they are all to one source. If a topic is notable, there should not be issues with finding additional sources, with few exceptions. Additionally, I find the lead missing some information, the article could use additional wikification, and clarification is needed with regards to the first sentence of the second paragraph under "The launch". The prose is off to the point that I'm not sure what is being said. 405:, I have explained I was nto aware of any GA-related stipulation that would require the article to have multiple sources and explained why I find the source reliable. I would be grateful if you could have a look at both the article and the discussion in Jazznutuva's talk page and tell me whether you also believe this article should be failed - either for the reason stated by Jazznutuva (if you can find relevant regulations please) or for any other. Thank you, 1035:, the source seemed to be a scholarly work, but obscure and hard to obtain; for this article, the source is readily accessible on the web, but most readers would find it impossible to assess the reliability of a website like this. I agree with Lara's concerns that material like this should have better sources, and these need to be found. On the other hand, there really is nothing here that is likely to be challenged. (Neither was there at 2926:

it had been delisted, or any timeline of said events; I merely was giving my personal opinion on the state of the article and improvements it needed. Hope that clears stuff up. However, after rereading the article as it stands now, and my comments on the talk page, I stand by my assessment on the talk page; the article lacks enough independant sources. Thus it cannot be said to be either neutral, broad, or reliable, and thus should be

66: 163:, Page numbers would be extremely useful, and indeed necessary to properly cite your references, but properly formatted or not, good references seem to be there. You will, however, absolutly have to get page numbers for FA status, there's really no way around it that I see, page numbers are crucial for making references easy to verify, especially when they're books. Also, I don't spot any major problems with the article. 1655:

comparison to other GA articles). I feel the article should be delisted immediately, as the offending sections have sat unimproved (some with tags) for quite some time. I decline to delist it myself unless absolutely necessary, as I have recently contributed significantly. Though the entire article needs reviewing for verifiability problems, the specific sections that contain large amounts of unverified assertions are:

2998:

sources are distorted", "there is a systematic bias in the secondary sources" and so on. One person's bias, is another's point of view. The correct way to deal with this is to present the facts and points of view in the sources, then counter inaccurate or disputed claims using primary sources where appropriate (making it clear that it is Masons disputing them, of course). Ironically, this approach is likely to be

31: 315:- I didn't realize what indexing was, as G'guy was refering to it. Upon realizing that, I agree with him that such referencing is sufficient for GA. I'd still like to see a couple additional inline citations is places, but overall, I think the article meets the standards. I have amended my recommendation to reflect this. And thanks, btw, to G'guy for rearranging the images. It looks much better! 1074:

from, and, in controversial cases, identify bits of information that were smuggled as sourced when if fact they cannot be verified by the purported source. I find them very practical - for example, I have written most of the Talbot / Chrysler Europe articles long ago and now I appreciate the fact that I left myself hints as to where to look for what when updating and refurbishing the articles.

477:

site was created to some extent. So, I think I could add some hardcopy sources (if only I gained access to them, which is not that easy, at least for me), but those would mostly confirm the less-disputable details such as tech data. Perhaps some enthusiasts'/classic car magazines would contain more info, but I think most of what would be contained therein would make its way to the site anyway.

1940:- lead needs to be expanded, additional references needed especially in the history section, athletics needs to be expanded, student life section could be expanded to include other topics besides greek life, incorporate the trivia section into the body of the article. does an HBO website referencing the fictional character tony soprano have much/enough credibility? 1814:, How could a writer and poet this famous possibly have an article this short? I'm no English teacher, so I can't be sure what's missing, but what I am sure of is something big certainly is, this person is far too famous to have an article this short. The Life and Marraiges sections are also compleatly unreferenced from the looks of it. Look at 2344: 2292: 758:(which, I was convinced, was linked to in the article at least, and I hope not more than, once), I am do not share your belief that such basic terms should be linked to in every article. I prefer to see a limited number of important and relevant links stand out in a paragraph rather than a sea of blue. But perhaps it's just me. 2535:. Hilarious, but unencyclopedic. I particularly enjoyed the section on shot technique, and the "exponential" skill curve. Inadequately sourced, this reads like a "How to play beer pong" manual. "The rules should be agreed beforehand" - indeed, but I couldn't even find a clear explanation of the order of play. 3049:(including core Knowledge policies). I also hope there is some will to change this, but it may need a shift in attitude or emphasis. I remain optimistic: the editors seem to be serious with high standards, and in many ways this is a very good article about Freemasonry - it is just not encyclopedic yet. 215:

main source, have indices. For me, this make page referencing unnecessary: we do not (and cannot) require page referencing for web-based sources, for example. It may even be unhelpful: for instance, by splitting the first citation into thirteen, it is less immediately obvious that it is the main source.

3002:

at dispelling myths and anti-Masonic viewpoints. The key is to let the reader decide. No article will change the views of the vehemently anti-Masonic reader: write for curious readers instead. If they find an article backed up largely by Masonic sources and apparently dismissive of most other claims,

2824:

As unfortunate as it is, it is not entirely uncommon for an article to achieve GA from one editor and lose GA within a matter of days when another editor sees it and realizes it should have never been passed at all. It is also worth noting that NPOV was brought up the day after the pass by Jayron who

2756:

brought his concerns to the talk page). We agreed to discuss the issues, but apart from a few minor items we were able to resolve, Meekrob has not been active either in the discussion or on WP since July 1, so we're at a standstill as far as that goes. As the article was delisted outside procedure,

2087:

The "History" section is GA material easily. The other 80-90% of the article is a mess. This is SO far below current GA standards I don't see why we're waiting around for this debate. Not going to list every problem; the lack of references is enough IMHO, the writing is over technical in places as

1731:

Article was failed as a GA twice this year, but I believe that the article is now in a mature stage to become a GA now, seeing as all the problems have been addressed, e.g. proseline and adequate numbers of outside references. If anyone has any suggestions on how to improve the article further before

1126:

Do you mean "secondary" or "tertiary"? Secondary sources are the most preferable, although primary sources are useful for basic facts, and tertiary sources can help to verify reliability at least in the sense that they mean someone other than Knowledge has checked the secondary sources. (They may not

1122:

PS. To make things clear - some very basic info can of course be sourced to reliable print sources, such as car catalogues (not that I have any period car catalogues at hand, my collection actually does not cover this very period when the Chrysler Sunbeam was made), but not the entire article and the

1047:

knows the ropes) but these footnotes add absolutely nothing to the article, since they are identical citations to the same webpage. What is the point of that? Citation is being confused with sourcing. The source for this article is the given website, and so the question is whether we accept that as a

896:

Hmm, the FA nom on that article doesn't appear to of even mentioned the reliance on the website in question, FA reviewers generally jump all over that kind of thing if there's really a problem, and a GA/R being tougher than an FAC just wouldn't be right. I guess there's not much to do but acknowladge

3208:

in my opinion. In particular, they are all less accessible than they could be, and have poor leads. It may be possible to handle the others without recourse to Good Article Review (i.e., I am willing to review them individually and delist them if necessary), but I think this one needs a wider input,

3018:

mentions disclosures and exposés, but they hardly get a mention in the article on the grounds that they are inaccurate. So what? I want to know what they said: this is encyclopedic information, and I, like many other readers, am curious. What is the current knowledge about the rituals and secrets of

2887:

necessarily excluded from the definition of a reliable secondary source, but some independence (e.g. peer review) is needed. Material written and produced by Masons can also be used as a primary source (for factual, uncontroversial information, or information that is backed up by secondary sources).

476:

Thank you! Now, I believe that although automotive magazines from the period could give some insight, some of the more important background information only saw the light of day years later, when former employees decided to reveal the behind-the-curtain details to eager enthusiasts, which is how the

3272:

This article is an example of where collaboration goes wrong, it seems. My sense from reading this article is that two or more different editors have added stuff. (kind of like reading the book of Genesis)... I can see that there is a Good Article in there. There is a bunch of well written, well

3006:

Some effort is made, even in the lead, to explain that Freemasonry is not secret society, because each Lodge publishes lists of members and proceedings. But it is widely viewed as a secret society, so the question is why? Have lists of members always been available? If not, when did this start, and

2997:

achieved by trying to find out who is right, or more accurate, or more consistent in their views, but by presenting all significant points of view. Yet in this article, secondary sources are bypassed in favor of primary ones on the grounds such as "the primary sources are more accurate", "the other

2925:

Just to clarify a misplaced modifier by LaraLove above. I did not pass the article, I made comments on it regarding the lack of independant sources. I was asked for my opinion on an ongoing debate; Awadewit requested that I comment and I did. I had no idea at the time this was even a GA, or that

2144:

added, but nothing else. Is this a secret cabal? I suggest you need to improve your communication. Some of the points you mention have already been fixed. The list of software has been removed to another article, although it is not a consumer report. It tells users what the programs do and programs

1845:

Writing is below GA standard in some places. Article is self-referential, for example this sentance "More information about the play as well as an illustration can be found at this webpage from the E. E. Cummings Society. " which also has an External Link. The entire article needs a single editor

638:

I believe the lead would benefit from information regarding the launch and positive reception between development/manufacturing details and the takeover info. The lead should touch on the most important points of the topic. It's generally considered that each header defines an important point. With

597:

Thank you for your review! Great to see you reviewing again! I admit it was a bit lazy of me, but I could think of a few more sources, and they would be the ones used in both the other articles I have mentioned. Neither is as comprehensive as the one I used, so it would all boil down to adding more

441:

I had a long review written out saing that the article should fail and why this article needed independant sources. Then I actually checked the source. It looks like an independant source to me, and seems quite reliable in that vein. It appeared from the name of the source that it was sourced to

365:

consensus that the source (the given website) is a reliable secondary source (independent from Chrysler, and well researched), but there was not consensus on whether this provides sufficient verifiability to the article: the nominator argued that the given source is the most reliable available, but

3063:

I, very unfortunately, passed this article. I apologize to all here—it was a lapse in judgment. I had thought that the issues regarding sources and POV could easily be cleared up when I first mentioned them. After I discovered that was not the case, I did not really know what to do. For all of the

2984:. Knowledge is an encyclopedia: verifiability, not truth, is the main criterion for inclusion. It is as much about knowledge and what is believed as about what is true. The word "reliable" in "reliable sources" needs to be interpreted with care: for example, reliable sources provide data about the 1800:

Article was passed as a GA in 2005, but appears to have since dropped in quality. It has no infobox, only two images (one of which is pretty poor, and the other a non-free image that seems to have an inadequate fair use rationale), poor organization, a very short introduction that needs expansion,

1439:

for not being broad in detail. The article is 30kb long and the only section missing is a production section; had that been included, there would be nothing to improve on. As criterion 3a notes, "This requirement...allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the

1073:

I stand by my opinion that this website is arguably the sole most comprehensive source for this topic, and however borderline the case might be (we have to face it it IS a rather obscure topic), and I do believe inline citations are very useful. They help identify where a given fragment is sourced

868:

is, I can think of a rather large number of instances where professional journalists aren't necessarily trustworthy, and simply being an enthusiast organization doesn't mean they are necessarily authoritative on the subject at hand, simply having some undefined connections to sources involved with

525:

I am not convinced that the source cited is truly neutral---but it is more of a history and thus "ok". I think the article is well written and interesting---but the source is very weak. But at this level, I think it is adequate. You wouldn't want to go to A-class or FA-class review as is... but

450:

and the like, I find it hard to believe that NO other sources exist, but given that this source seems independent, and is thus reliable, I see no reason to fail it. As room for future improvement, though, it does need additional sources... Back issues of automotive mags from the 70's could really

376:

This article has been listed at GA/R for over 6 weeks and there is still no sign of consensus: if anything, consensus is moving towards the default position of endorsing the failed nomination. There is little point in continuing the discussion, and it probably could have been closed some time ago:

214:

In my view, the article is clearly well sourced from definitive academic secondary sources, and there is little here that is likely to be challenged. Of the five references, one is a glossary, and the other four are chapters or essays in scholarly works: at least three of the latter, including the

3118:

I had problems with the article from the very first paragraph. The second sentence uses the word "claim" twice. When used in this manner it becomes a very POV term. It basically says that the Freemasons lie about their origins and their membership. But worse than that---it's got three separate

3035:

arguments and Masonic sources. And all this is in a section which also discusses conspiracy theories, totalitarian regimes, and anti-Semitism. Knowledge deserves better. What about the relation, for example, with the requirement to declare Freemasonry membership in certain professions? Isn't this

2647:

I understand that, but to be too stiff about these things means we're beginning to mix up WP:RS and WP:N, as certain subjects will only be covered by certain types of sources. It's a concern to me. In my opinion, it's been published and peer reviewed, so no problem; specially if there's no better

1998:, I found that for this article, the GA tag was just added to the talk page by an anonymous user who had also worked on the page back more than a year ago. The article may qualify but judging by other GAs, I think it needs to be reworked even if it is going through a scientific review process. -- 1112:

All others are of lesser reliability than the one quoted, and I even suspect some of them of being secondary. I can make the article rife with varied citations to complement the ones that are currently there, but I do need time for that (which I do not have ATM). I just think this wouldn't change

209:. I think Lara is being rather strict here (as she is entitled to be) in her interpretation of the GA criteria for citation. I suspect Lara probably recognises this, and it is typical of the high quality and integrity of her reviews that she labels her endorsement of the fail with the word "weak". 1654:

I have recently began to contribute to this article, and I find it has many sections that contain potentially controversial facts without proper sourcing. As a user who has couple good GA reviews under my belt, I was quite shocked to realize that the article continues to be listed (when taken in

949:

Just because one article slipped through the cracks at FAC doesn't mean we should let another pass here. Regardless, I don't see that necessarily being the case here. While the FAC article mentioned does use the same source as a reference, it does not rely solely on that source. It is completely

886:

Featured Article has been written largely basing on the same source (and ones of similar qualities). I assure you that, to my best knowledge, there is little more encyclopedic information about the car that is not yet in the article. As I said, I can add more references (all of them online, I am

793:

to an editor on my talk page, the usage of a single reference for a topic introduces an extremely bad problem of unpredictability, how can we be sure that a single solitary reference actually is covering everything notable there is to know on this subject? I think it is extremely unlikely that a

2558:

I'm not sure if this is much help, but here is my suggestion: imagine you are living fifty years from now and that Beer pong is no longer popular. Someone mentions it in conversation and you don't know what they are talking about. They laugh that you have not heard of the drinking game that was

1194:

Ah, yes. Thank you G'guy. I was thinking it was a delist nom. The default no consensus result is that the article stay where it is, so G'guy is correct that this article would remain a failed GAN. I look back over it with SidiLemine's new addition. If I feel that has corrected the problem, I'll

1175:

I think Lara may have misread something: this was a failed GA nomination. The default position in the event of "no consensus" here is that it remains a failed GA nomination. If there are no objections, I am willing to archive it on that basis, as I cannot even find consensus with myself on this

3023:

about Freemasonry by non-Masons. But at the moment, all we get is a brief discussion of the more outrageous speculations, quite believably denied, and the assertion that the disclosures are inaccurate, the rituals change over time, and they vary from Lodge to Lodge. Again, so what? Some of the

807:

If you could take a moment to acquaint yourself with my correspondence with Jazznutuva, you will see why the source fulfills the necessary conditions you have mentioned. As I said, I can provide more sources, but actually I don't think anything can be added to the factual scope of the article.

1241:

I think if the article is broad enough, and the source is reliable, then why not. Offering one or two others, however, would be a couteous thing to do, enabling cross checking. PrinceGloria says there are other online sources, I say go for it, even if it be in the "External links" or "Further

863:

Based on what i'm seeing in that now-archived talk page discussion about that source, I am not yet convinced it is truly something like the end-all be-all of what could possibly reference this subject. An enthusiast organization of professional journalists doesn't even reach the top of what a

1298:

On reviewing the references for Route 40, I discovered that the standard of citation for (the even more well-known) Route 66 is worse. It lists some uncited references, and then, later, a link farm of poorly formatted footnotes and external links. The pop culture section is also rather weak.

974:

It looks like both articles use the same website for almost all of their english-language referencing, and with the FA, the only other english source used mostly appears no better than the website being used in this article. I can't tell either way myself whether or not this website truly is

821:

I think additional sources are necessary for verifiability alone. I feel it's inappropriate to base all findings on a sole source, regardless of it's reliability. Notable topics generally have plenty of sources to choose from. This article would benefit from the addition of such sources.

262:

subpage of the given website (Ref 1). As for this article, my view is that it is adequately sourced. Thanks for your reply though. The template you mention sounds clever, but I still do not believe page referencing is necessary at the GA level, especially for sources which have indexes.

3273:

referenced sections, but they are interspersed with some overly technical, unreferenced, and hard to read sections as well. Shame really. If we can strip this down to its basics, we might return it to GA status. As it is today, however, it has too much work to call it "Good"... --

1227:

I agree this changes nothing: it just provides new references to new material :-) without affecting the question of whether the source for the pre-existing material is adequate. I still have no clear opinion on whether this source is adequate. I would be interested to know what

761:

As concerns free photographs, getting them is really hard for historic cars like this one, so I wouldn't want to commit myself now to providing one. You can surely see more in the web pages I used as a source, and of course with the Google image search feature and similare.

2972:. I agree entirely with Jayron32 (both here and on the talk page) that this article is not neutral, broad or reliably sourced. If the talk page is anything to go by, there seems to be a misunderstanding or misinterpretation by regular editors of the core Knowledge policies 2511:, much of the article has no internal citation, and the American section has an OR tag. With so much of the article not referenced, I can't be sure what else would need to be fixed, since of course, if the article became referenced, much of the content would likely change. 1254:, and doesn't talk about the interior of the car, or its price at the time. I can't honestly juge that as I'm not used to car articles. So to sum it up, I say the source is OK, but I'm not sure about the article. Sorry about the length and thank you for your attention. -- 3119:

distinct points merged into one sentence! I have to agree with the above, the sources are all too Masonic... more independent sources are needed. I am not advocating a position that Mason's can't speak on Masons, but more that you need independent verification of such.

2570:

If you really think you can bring this article up to standards, we can place fact tags at every point where a citation is needed, but I am letting you know now, it's going to look like a nuclear fact bomb exploded on that article and threw fact tag shrapnel everywhere.

950:

unacceptable. This article, like that one, should include additional references. And, PrinceGloria, the fact that there may be no additional encyclopedic information to be added is irrelevant. Information currently in the article can be attributed to multiple sources.

1494:

Because, while I'm sure there are sources for it, I haven't found them yet. I expect there is information on the DVD special features, which I do not have, and I'm sure there are some interviews that are more geared towards production than del Toro's ideas somewhere.

291:, the external links should appear after the references. But that is minor. As a whole, this article is easily GA ready now. But I still agree with LaraLove that if we are to strive for continuous improvement, we should aim to get those page numbers in there. -- 719:" - The underlined portion does not make sense to me. I think the entire sentence needs to be reworked, possibly split into two. I think it's missing a comma after "and", at which point it makes sense. I recommend making it two sentences. I think that would help. 225:

I agree with Lara that an online source would nicely complement the scholarly approach, but it is not a GA criterion. I agree as well that the images were a bit crowded, and although this is also not a GA criterion, I have rearranged them to reduce the crowding.

1018:. I've been hesitating to comment at this one, because I have mixed feelings about it, but this article does seem to need further comment, as Lara's edit summary indicated. Unlike her, I am not against articles with a single main source. In fact I supported 975:

amazingly reliable for topics like this, so I just don't see a reason yet to doubt the FAC people in that review. If one reference can actually give a comprehensive and accurate outlook on a topic, I just don't see the reason to fail a GA for using just it.

1527:- Other than the missing production information, I noted only that the lead does not summarize all sections and a couple of references are missing a retrieval date. Otherwise, it looks good to me. If the production info can be found, the rest is simple. 1083:

Ok, just so I'm clear, you're saying there are no other reliable sources that back up any of the claims made by the source used for the article? If the answer is yes, then I question the notability of the subject. If the answer is no, use some of them.

915:, based on the FAC on a similar article also relying solely on the website in question, it appears the reference given comes from a website of unchallenged reliability, and I see nothing else in this article that catches my eye as possibly problematic. 1906:

Review was dead in the water. In looking back over the article and the talk page, it was clear that the article does not currently meet GA standards and that issues raised by nominator on talk page are not being addressed. Consider this me being bold.

149:

as it stands can lead to almost too extensive citing, I feel it is important to get clarification that even further elaboration of sources is not neessary, especially when no one is claiming the facts to be challenged / likely to be challenged.

3209:

since I'm not sure if it is easy to fix or not. Certainly the lead is inadequate, but I could probably fix that. However, what about the balance, coverage, citation and referencing? I suspect it is not up to GA standard, but is it easy to fix?

1059:

have only one major source, and often citing further sources is artificial, because such additional sources are actually based on the original source. I think this article could do better, but I also suspect it is doing quite well as it is.

1042:

For me, this raises a wide issue. In my view, there has historically been an obsession here with inline citation. We are moving away from that, but only slowly. Look at this article: at the end of every paragraph there is an inline citation

1127:

have done it carefully, of course!) The car catalogues and manufacturer's specifications are primary sources. Your source is (in a large part) secondary (which is, as I say, good!). Some tertiary sources might help address Lara's concerns.

991:- Legitimate concerns have been raised regarding the quality of this article. The custodian has acknowledged these concerns and pledged to address them "ASAP", however, no changes have been made. For this reason, my recommendation stands. 3131:

I don't the article is entirely balanced in its coverage, nor do I find the prose clear. The prose lacks clarity, I believe, because it is not sufficiently terse, which follows from making decisions concerning what the article is

1157:

states that "articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources". At this point, any reliable sources would improve the article. You're working off one source. There needs to be something to help verify those claims.

286:

close to FA status, and page numbers is all that is holding it back. However, it is unambiguously referenced, as I am confident that I could easily find all of this information in the sources provided. AS a minor quibble, per

382:

Before renominating, it would be advisable to supply additional sources: even additional primary sources (for factual data) and tertiary sources (to back up the reliability of the main secondary source) would help. Good luck!

2387:

I ran across this article while participating in the GA sorting project. In trying to determine which version of the page was the one that actually recieved the GA promotion, it was not clear to me that this article actually

2559:

hugely popular in the late twentieth and early twenty first century. You go to Knowledge (let us assume it still exists :) for well-sourced neutral information on the phenomenon. Write the article you would expect to find.

3036:

related to concerns about networking and patronage? Don't Masonic sources also talk about giving employment to other Masons? I am not saying the criticism is correct or well-founded - it may even be anti-Masonic - but it

424:

Stupid me... This only goes to show I am not that immersed in this process, but also, that sometimes rather than pointing fingers you could actually walk the talk (whatever has been said in the talk page notwithstanding)

3064:

reasons regarding sources and POV that I have already stated on the article's talk page and for all of the excellent reasons outlined by Geometry guy above, I believe that this article does not meet the GA requirements.

646:

I respect not wanting to over-link the article. For me, it's sometimes difficult to decide what to link, but I try to consider the differences in languages and reader's english comprehension. I would wikilink

2253:

is the one I use for international refs. I saw that Drew uses it for many of his articles. I recommend looking through other band articles to see what websites they use if this one doesn't work out for you.

2482:

meant the nomination to be a review, but that seems unlikely. However, although procedures were botched, it seems that both of these independent editors thought it met the good article criteria at the time.

2136:. I think I and others who edit this page have no problem with this delisting. I never thought it deserved the GA status. However none of us were aware that this discussion was going on. We we notified by 1453:

While the article looks great, I fail articles all the time (albums, movies, etc...) on lack of production information. That section is significant enough that, when missing, the article fails criteria

366:

some of the reviewers suggested e.g. that Autocar and other automotive magazines would be useful additional sources. I have ignored "in principle" arguments about whether one source is ever sufficient.

869:

this car does not an authoritative enthusaist organization make. Surely there's more out there on cars like this besides what's on the websites of enthusiasts and what's in hard-to-access maganizes?

2888:

Freemasonry is being treated no differently from Catholicism here: Jewish sources are not required for either (except where they relate to Judaism), but independent sources are required for both.

138:

I find further support in recently passed GA articles using the same approach to using the References section as the bibliography, with no page number provided when source not quoted/paraphrased.

3219:

I've improved the formatting of the references, but my attempt to fix the lead failed badly. The article is still inaccessible, and the prose is not good. I guess that means I have to recommend

3007:

was it in response to legislation or internal debate? How is this related to "declaration of Freemasonry membership" issues mentioned later in the article? I can see the distinction here, but

2854:- While there was no significant difference between the version that was passed for GA, and the version that Meekrob had issues with, I just want to note that the regular editors to the page 1352:- agreed, way too messy in both text and picture placement, size, and use. almost every line item in the pop culture section could use a specific footnote. fact tags need to be addressed. 2145:

are the core of this topic. Why do references have to be consistently formatted? I take it you mean using the citation templates. I did not think that they were obligatory for GA status. --

2858:(since his delisting) made changes to address most of his concerns. While a few issues do remain to be discussed, I don't see them as affecting whether the article regains its GA status. 2371:. Consensus was for delist due to insufficient citation. Although changes were made, the article does not currently meet standards. Unreferenced template in itself is a quick-fail for GA. 639:

that in mind, a bit of detail from each section should be included in the lead. In this case, as mentioned above, that would include "The launch". Additionally, I believe PSA should be "

3297:

wow this article seems repeat itself... but not only that, it seems to repeat itself! It also jumps around making transitions without warning or explanation... and it repeats itself..

2177:, I saw on the talk page it was a GA. It was passed in June 2006, so I'm guessing that was before the requirement for references was raised. The article is largely underreferenced. 2109:

Don't support the notion of speedy delisting as I believe that every opportunity should be granted for somebody to come along and try to save the status. But barring major changes,

3144:

the Freemasons. This is a particular example of other parts of the society reacting to Freemasonry, and certainly is a facet worthy of development in an introduction. Take care. —

3040:

be discussed neutrally. The article is a long way from being neutral when critical views are treated in the way that they currently are. Don't be defensive: let the reader decide!

1681:

If all the uncited, controversial facts in these sections are covered under general sources, they need to be footnoted or Harvard referenced. Also, other minor problems include:

728:

Past that, I would like to see some additional images of the other versions. (This is not required for GA, I just would like to see them... I think it would improve the article.

3024:

rituals that have been described probably have happened at some time in some places, and an article on Freemasonry doesn't come close to being broad if it doesn't discuss them.

936:

I was quite surprised myself, it might be attributed to the fact that the topic was not special interest to many reviewers. OTOH, you won't find better sources, I assure you.

2240:

I am in the process of finding sources for the charts and certifications. I will delete what I cannot source. Please advise if you know any source for international charts.--

713:

Even in spite of the ability to keep the UK business afloat, Chrysler was still making losses both in Europe and at home, and facing the possibility of complete bankruptcy,

2008:

The article was tagged in 2005, before there was a review process. If someone at that time thought an article looked pretty good in their opinion, they gave it the GA tag.

927:

I am surprised that the FAC for that article passed based upon this limited sourcing. The FAC on this article appears to be easy compared to most FAC that I've seen.

3102:

I haven't seen any progress on addressing the concerns raised by Jayron32, Awadawit and myself, and the page which you linked does not address these issues either.

393:

This might not be the best moment to post an article for GA/R, but I really need third-party opinion. This article was nominated by me and subsequently reviewed by

2279:

OK, so all there is left is the Singles section to source. If someone would be as kind as to place fact tags where needed, I'll take care of that. Anything else?--

675:, because I had to go check what that was, but the article seems of no help in this instance as it refers to a component of the tissue system of the human body.), 3140:

arose, in part, because Roman Catholics in New England in the late 19th century wished to participate in a fraternal organization like Freemasonry, but which was

2678:

Article was never reviewed or listed as a GA. A member of WikiProject Judaism tagged the article as GA after a member of WP1.0 rated it as GA for their template.

58: 1759:

Is this review supposed to be contesting the previous fail? GA/R's are sort of supposed to be trying to contest a decision that someone feels isn't valid....

2523:

Lack of inline citations, and original research tag needs to be addressed. Many of the sections could also be expanded, as some are only single sentences. --

218:

The "one reference per paragraph" idea is bean counting, which I do not and will never support: for example, it leads to the funny situation we found in the

42:

of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

442:

Chrysler itself (which would then be unreliable). But this looks kosher when I actually read it. Given the wealth of automotive trade publications like

2485:

The question is, does it meet them now? My initial assessment is no: without more sources, several parts of the article appear to be original research.

887:

afraid), but not really much more info, if any at all. I apologize for just talking and not being bold and doing it ATM due to my RL time constraints.

493:

I am not familiar with UK or European automotive publications, and while those mags may not be distributed in Europe, some equivalents I am SURE are.--

281:

I see nothing really wrong with this one and its level of referencing. Would a perfect article have page numbers, yes. I think this article is : -->

2825:

went through and detailed issues, and NPOV discussions have been steadily continuing since. With that said, I'll begin my review of the article now.

2985: 76: 2270:

Thanks! Alas, the history stops in 2005, and this is a 1998 album.... Anyway, now I'm more looking for global sales figures and certifications.--

2951:

Oh, my apologies. I worded it incorrectly. I was meaning it as you left comments the day after the review, not that the review was done by you.

1886:

the length doesn't bother me either, but the lack of references does. The lack of a solid lead does. The prose from the poetry point forward.

357:

The main issue discussed was whether the article (which relies almost entirely on a single webpage for its information) is adequately sourced (

2052:, Too many sections compleatly unsourced, their parent articles also appear unsourced or poorly sourced mostly, by and large does not satisfy 2336:

looks as if there is a sincere effort to fix the deficeincy... one comment, you do need to add "accessed on" dates to the online references.

545:

As per Jayron32. Source appears reliable and sufficient, but I'm sure other sources can be found (besides the two that have been added). -

3031:. Legitimate concerns about cronyism and patronage, which have regularly appeared in mainstream media, are unsourced, then dismissed using 611:

Mmm... What is unclear about the sentence you've mentioned? Does the comment on the prose pertain to that sentence or the entire paragraph?

38: 1607:, issues appear to have been addressed. I fixed a few minor issues regarding referencing. I now feel this article should be listed as GA. 1211:

Unfortunately, I'm just not compelled to find the addition of a book (without ISBN) referencing something to do with seats as a solution.

754:

Thank you again. I will try to deal with that ASAP, which might not be too soon due to my RL obligations. As concerns linking, apart from

1147:, so the article will more than likely retain it's GA by default for lack of recommendations to determine consensus one way or the other. 17: 1638:) - Article was tagged as GA in early 2006 before criteria or a reviewing process was in place. It clearly fails many of the criteria. 2879:

This has been explained several times on the talk page by Awadawit and Jayron32. The issue is not whether "Masons wrote it", but that

556: 1418:

The lack of a production section was the only major concern. Other minor issues were corrected and the production section was added.

3185: 2068:

per above. Needs additional sources. Sources need to be consistently formatted as well. Cleanup template is a no-no for me as well.

1743: 1923:

Article was just passed as a GA, apparently by an inexperienced reviewer. There are significant issues with it, according to the

1706: 134:, I believe that on the contrary the article conforms to the two criteria. In addition to my reading of the relevant sections in 2988:, even though this data is essentially meaningless. Being incorrect and being unreliable can be very different things sometimes! 1952:

and have issues addressed. However, the copyrighted images which lack fair use rationales qualify this article for quick-fail.

1481:

Atropos, is the reason there's no production section because there's no available sources on it, or because it isn't done yet?

1468: 3284: 2941: 2837: 2782: 2629:

Considering the nature of the article, would a student newspaper from a canadia university be considered a reliable source?--

2613:

While there sure is a terrible lack of source, I think I could find a few if given a little time. Can someone have a look at

2099: 1871: 1003: 962: 834: 740: 581: 504: 462: 302: 3019:

Masons? I trust there is no conflict of interest here between the obligation not to reveal secrets, and presenting what is

1749: 1145:{unindent} It appears that this discussion may not reach consensus considering the lack of attention this project receives 3197: 2648:

source and the subject already matches WP:N. Anyway, here's the main source I wish to use to cover the Game Play parts:

1715:

Last fail over two months prior to nomination. Article should either request peer review or be nominated again at GAC.

1444: 1429: 369:

In addition to this debate, one reviewer argued very credibly that there are some gaps in the coverage of the article (

2757:

can it be relisted and then re-reviewed if necessary so we actually have time to work on fixing any potential issues?

771:

PS. At that time, PSA simply stood for "Peugeot Societe Anonyme", the change to the currently-used name occured later.

879: 608:

What wikification? I try no to overlink, and I think I have linked to all major relevant articles along the way...

2171: 1052:, but because it was not similarly littered with inline cites (to the single source), my question was dismissed. 354:

Since I am closing this review not in strict accordance with the guidelines, I will provide some justification.

258:

Indeed: this one is much better sourced. In the Sunbeam article, all but two or three of the cites were to the

3082:- I'm currently working with the custodians of this article to bring it up to standards. Progress can be seen 3083: 2903: 2649: 1970: 1324: 3301: 3289: 3262: 3248: 3227: 3213: 3179: 3148: 3123: 3108: 3097: 3074: 3053: 2962: 2946: 2917: 2892: 2874: 2862: 2844: 2819: 2789: 2761: 2743: 2717: 2704: 2689: 2656: 2642: 2633: 2621: 2605: 2582: 2565: 2553: 2541: 2527: 2515: 2503: 2489: 2396: 2382: 2355: 2318: 2309: 2283: 2274: 2265: 2244: 2232: 2192: 2149: 2128: 2116: 2104: 2079: 2060: 2044: 2012: 2002: 1989: 1963: 1944: 1931: 1918: 1890: 1876: 1822: 1805: 1795: 1776: 1763: 1753: 1726: 1700: 1649: 1618: 1599: 1587: 1575: 1563: 1550: 1538: 1519: 1499: 1485: 1473: 1399: 1380: 1368: 1356: 1344: 1332: 1303: 1293: 1258: 1236: 1222: 1206: 1189: 1180: 1169: 1131: 1117: 1095: 1078: 1064: 1010: 979: 969: 940: 931: 919: 901: 891: 873: 854: 841: 812: 798: 766: 747: 622: 588: 561: 537: 509: 481: 467: 429: 419: 409: 387: 326: 307: 267: 249: 230: 201: 179: 167: 154: 113: 3224: 3210: 3104: 3050: 3027:

Criticism and opposition to Masonry are folded in together, and discussed using leading language, such as

2889: 2561: 2537: 2486: 1560: 1516: 1300: 1233: 1177: 1128: 1061: 640: 550: 384: 264: 227: 2906:. Changes aren't being made. I believe the article should be delisted, improved and renominated at GAC. 2125: 2088:

well, and the "Software comparison" table is decidedly unencyclopedic. WP is not Consumer Reports... --

1941: 1897: 1737: 1376:

Needs more citations to improve verifiability, and is stuvvy in places. Citations also need formatting.

1353: 398: 1849:

Referencing is very light. Lots of information lacks ANY internal cites, and so is unverifiable. see

1185:

I have added a print source with new info. It's not much, but I hope it can help solve the problem. --

790: 402: 1340:. There's no reason at all for a road about which so much has been written to not cite any books. -- 1027:

The question (for me) is, how reliable is the source? This question, either for this article or for

598:

inline citation marks and not any actual content, FWIK. Anyway, could I have a few questions of you?

130:(citing sources — claiming page numbers for sources to be mandatory). As explained on the article's 3137: 2465: 2440: 2420: 1464: 119: 44: 30: 3278: 3259: 3243: 3174: 3092: 3069: 2957: 2935: 2912: 2834: 2816: 2779: 2738: 2684: 2600: 2577: 2377: 2304: 2260: 2093: 2074: 1984: 1958: 1928: 1913: 1865: 1721: 1644: 1635: 1613: 1533: 1424: 1394: 1377: 1288: 1217: 1201: 1164: 1090: 1000: 959: 831: 737: 578: 498: 456: 416: 321: 296: 244: 196: 108: 2713:

per extreme lack of referencing and inline citations. Intro is also in dire need of expansion.

1114: 1075: 1044: 937: 888: 809: 763: 755: 680: 619: 546: 478: 426: 406: 131: 1688:

The article seems to be compromised in some sections, such as Dog breeds, with peacock words.

3189: 2524: 1815: 1733: 1596: 1436: 1407: 333: 288: 219: 65: 2694:

Poor lead, no inline/harvard referencing. No images (not criteria, but still). Found via

2124:- needs more references, references, references and all need to be consistently formatted. 1022:, which was also written from a single main source, and was surprised that it was delisted. 3298: 3205: 3120: 3046: 2639: 2512: 2337: 2113: 2057: 2027: 2009: 1924: 1887: 1819: 1760: 1572: 1482: 1455: 1365: 1049: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1019: 976: 928: 916: 898: 897:

this website as compleatly reliable, if it passes through FAC, it should pass through GA.

870: 851: 795: 534: 527: 394: 370: 358: 164: 3201: 3155: 3015: 2981: 2880: 2695: 2041: 1995: 1834: 1783: 1773: 1584: 1512: 1460: 1154: 656: 447: 142: 135: 3274: 3238: 3193: 3169: 3087: 3065: 3028: 2977: 2952: 2931: 2907: 2859: 2826: 2771: 2733: 2679: 2595: 2572: 2550: 2479: 2471:

that procedure had been followed, apart from the template placement. The article was

2406: 2372: 2299: 2255: 2089: 2069: 2053: 1979: 1953: 1908: 1861: 1716: 1695: 1639: 1608: 1528: 1419: 1389: 1388:

per all of above. Way under-referenced, and I agree with all the above noted issues.

1341: 1283: 1273: 1212: 1196: 1159: 1085: 992: 951: 883: 823: 729: 664: 660: 570: 494: 452: 316: 292: 239: 191: 103: 3003:

they are more likely to become suspicious than educated. Let me give some examples.

3165: 3145: 2871: 2758: 2749: 2614: 2500: 2393: 2156: 2022:: Poor lead, and entire sections are unsourced. Could do with serious cleanup, so 1840: 1769: 1547: 1496: 1441: 1364:, definently not well-referenced, very little of the article appears to not be OR. 1247: 865: 486:

PS. Oh BTW - I don't think that either MT or R&T have a UK or European edition.

146: 94: 3045:

I hope I have explained as clearly as possible why this article does not meet the

530:

14:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)EDIT: convinced by discussion below that this should be

377:

renomination at GAN will be more straightforward than obtaining a consensus here.

2973: 2724: 2458: 2229: 1850: 1327: 443: 151: 1691:

The article is not stable, and major changes/rewrites occur on a regular basis.

2714: 2699: 2146: 2141: 2137: 2035: 1999: 1802: 1792: 1251: 786: 676: 668: 401:

for it being written basing on only one source, which he found unreliable. In

2653: 2630: 2618: 2352: 2315: 2280: 2271: 2241: 2189: 1801:

and does not have enough references for an biographical article of its size.

1255: 1229: 1186: 222:

article, in which each paragraph ends with an inline cite to the same source.

176: 126:(providing references — an unclear claim of there being no bibliography) and 3032: 2362: 1511:. Apart from the lack of production information, this article does not meet 1571:, production section seems quite good, and I don't see any other problems. 1242:

Reading". As for the source at hand, I think it looks pretty reliable (see

1149:

I still recommend, however, that you do what you can to address this issue

1685:

The overpopulation section lacks comprehensiveness and a global viewpoint

648: 2902:- I've got a review of the article with recommended changes in progress 2881:

Knowledge articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources

2669: 1583:

I'd suggest you try for A-class next - this is a really good article! -

1595:

The article has greatly improved since the beginning of the review. --

2652:. After that, there's plenty of "official" sites to cover the rest.-- 1321: 789:, and the situation for that article seems very similar to this one. 672: 652: 3184:

There are five good (but not featured) articles within the scope of

451:

help flesh the article out, but this is GA quality in my opinion.--

1243: 2197:

Only part of one paragraph in the Singles section is referenced,

101:

Result: Unanimous consensus for the article to be listed as a GA.

2140:

of what he states at the top and of course we saw the tag that

175:

per Homestarmy. The references provided are anough for a GAC.--

1625: 2752:

delisted it without following procedure (he delisted it and

3258:

per LaraLove's reasoning, and due to lack of verification.

1790:

Result: Unanimous consensus for the article to be delisted.

1440:

topic, and broad overviews of large topics to be listed."

1839:

External links in the text. There shouldn't be any. See

2638:

IMHO, I would be hard pressed to accept a student paper.

2413:

in May last year. Then, in a space of a few minutes, he

2392:

got a real review for GA. Maybe I am missing something.

2218: 2806: 2802: 2798: 2472: 2468: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2431: 2427: 2414: 2410: 2409:, who had not previously edited the article, made some 1316: 785:

I've dealt with at least one article like this before,

2204:

Most of the Chart performance section is unreferenced.

2549:

What do I need to do to get it back on the review? --

2217:

The Certification and sales section is referenced to

1833:

Inadequate lead does not summarize the article. See

1048:

reliable source. I tried to ask the same question at

2250: 2748:The article was GA listed May 29, and on June 30, 2443:, who had also not previously edited the article, 2163:Result: Issues addressed. Article shall retain GA. 1546:I believe I have addressed all of these concerns. 2815:changes in NPOV has taken place between the two. 2464:to the talk page. This was briefly disputed, but 2314:Thanks! I'll have a look and see what I can do.-- 715:decided to sell Chrysler Europe to the French PSA 1830:The length doesn't bother me. These things do: 695:The story of the car's name is also interesting 3164:However, article was never actually listed at 2209:The Charts section is completely unreferenced. 1732:a nomination should take place, let me know. — 1113:much considering the article's GA-worthiness. 697:", which does not read encyclopedically to me. 351:following the failed Good Article Nomination. 8: 711:Concerning the previously mentioned issue; " 25: 2797:- reviewers might find it interesting to 145:guidelines already as interpreted in the 1246:), as it has all the characteristics at 605:What information is missing in the lead? 1031:, is inaccessible to most readers: for 3168:, therefore, no action was necessary. 2993:Furthermore, neutral point of view is 2801:the version that was considered to be 2731:Result: Article shall remain delisted. 2199:which has two one-sentence paragraphs. 1977:Result: Unanimous consensus to delist. 2475:(semi-automatically?) to the GA list. 2182:The Amazon.com review has no citation 702:There were three trim level available 618:Thank you in advance for your reply! 7: 850:I'll look at the discussion anyway. 18:Knowledge:Good article reassessment 3204:. None of them currently meet the 24: 3186:Knowledge:WikiProject Game theory 1846:to go over and bring clean it up. 2883:. Material written by Masons is 2617:and tell me if I'm free to go?-- 2342: 2290: 2288:Sorry I didn't see this sooner. 1707:1 (New York City Subway service) 64: 29: 3009:the article does not explain it 2676:Not a GA, no action necessary. 1123:most "important" parts of it. 1: 2650:The student paper in question 1904:Result: Returned to "on hold" 1055:Think people - many articles 693:I also noticed the sentence " 526:for GA it meets the criteria. 403:my discussion with Jazznutuva 3198:Evolutionary stable strategy 2445:removed the article from GAN 686:As far as issues with prose: 1994:As part of classifying for 3318: 3180:16:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 3149:00:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 2744:16:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 2718:14:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 2705:08:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 2690:16:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 2657:10:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 2643:02:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 2449:removed the nomination tag 2428:commented on the talk page 2383:21:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 2356:11:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 2340:01:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 2319:12:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 2221:, a self-published source. 2150:22:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 1990:21:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 1919:15:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 1891:00:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 1818:for comparison in length. 1796:03:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 1312:way too messy to be a GA. 1195:change my recommendation. 1151:whether it keeps GA or not 118:The article was failed by 3302:21:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 3290:06:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 3263:16:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 3249:19:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 3228:16:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 3214:20:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 3124:21:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 3109:11:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 3098:02:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 3075:10:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 3054:15:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 2963:07:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 2947:06:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 2918:18:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 2893:15:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 2698:if anyone's interested. 2634:12:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 2622:11:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 2606:19:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2583:19:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2566:18:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2554:13:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2542:17:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 2528:16:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 2516:01:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 2504:22:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 2490:20:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 2397:16:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 2310:19:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 2284:17:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 2275:15:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 2266:14:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 2245:18:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 2233:04:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 2193:18:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 2129:23:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 2117:19:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 2105:05:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 2080:05:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 2061:04:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 2045:04:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 2013:04:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 2003:04:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 1964:02:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 1945:20:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 1932:19:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 1877:05:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 1823:16:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 1806:12:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 1777:12:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 1764:20:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC) 1754:13:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC) 1727:14:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 1701:22:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1650:03:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 1619:02:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 1600:16:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1588:05:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 1576:21:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 1564:11:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 1551:01:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 1539:18:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 1520:15:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1430:02:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 1405: 1400:05:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1381:02:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1369:01:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1357:18:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 1345:23:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 1333:22:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 1304:22:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 1294:05:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1259:10:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 1237:19:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 1232:thinks about this issue. 1223:18:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 1207:16:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 1190:15:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 1181:19:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 1170:18:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 1132:19:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 1118:17:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 1096:18:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 1079:22:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 980:17:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC) 970:14:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC) 941:07:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC) 932:05:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC) 920:18:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC) 902:18:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC) 892:20:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC) 874:22:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC) 855:15:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC) 842:07:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC) 813:05:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC) 799:03:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC) 767:20:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC) 748:07:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC) 623:05:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC) 589:20:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC) 562:16:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC) 538:15:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC) 510:02:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC) 482:14:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC) 468:04:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC) 388:12:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 327:16:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 308:06:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 268:20:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 250:19:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 231:19:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 202:18:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 180:15:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 168:22:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 155:09:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 114:16:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 70:Good article reassessment 2875:17:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2863:13:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2845:15:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2820:09:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2809:. As far as I can tell, 2807:the one Meekrob delisted 2790:06:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC) 2762:20:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 2432:added the article to GAN 1500:18:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 1486:17:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 1474:17:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 1445:07:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 1065:00:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 1011:02:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 430:23:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC) 420:19:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC) 415:New noms go on the top. 410:12:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC) 2167:Right after I added an 1971:Computational Chemistry 631:I couldn't stay away... 347:and so article remains 2451:from the article, and 2986:lengths of coastlines 1925:good article criteria 1898:Seton Hall University 878:I know this is kinda 700:Under "The launch", " 2478:It is possible that 2426:to the article (!), 1555:I agree: nice work. 704:" - should that be " 3138:Knights of Columbus 3000:much more effective 2803:so good it was a GA 2499:Very poorly cited. 1416:Result: List as GA. 880:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 643:(PSA)" in the lead. 641:PSA Peugeot Citroën 397:, who subsequently 120:user:PocklingtonDan 2473:subsequently added 2439:A few days later, 1860:Is that enough? -- 522:Weak support as GA 122:based on criteria 3287: 3281: 3072: 2944: 2938: 2102: 2096: 2020:Delist nontheless 1874: 1868: 1748: 1742: 1665:Sprint metabolism 1632:Speedily delisted 756:front-wheel drive 681:front-wheel drive 559: 553: 507: 501: 465: 459: 305: 299: 186:Weak Endorse fail 91: 90: 83: 82: 52: 51: 45:current talk page 3309: 3285: 3279: 3246: 3241: 3190:Nash equilibrium 3177: 3172: 3095: 3090: 3070: 2960: 2955: 2942: 2936: 2915: 2910: 2842: 2832: 2829: 2787: 2777: 2774: 2741: 2736: 2702: 2687: 2682: 2603: 2598: 2580: 2575: 2463: 2457: 2425: 2419: 2380: 2375: 2350: 2346: 2345: 2334:Conditional keep 2307: 2302: 2298: 2294: 2293: 2263: 2258: 2176: 2172:unreferencedsect 2170: 2126:LurkingInChicago 2100: 2094: 2077: 2072: 2038: 2032: 1987: 1982: 1961: 1956: 1942:LurkingInChicago 1916: 1911: 1872: 1866: 1816:Ernest Hemingway 1746: 1740: 1724: 1719: 1698: 1677:Laughter in dogs 1647: 1642: 1616: 1611: 1536: 1531: 1472: 1451:Endorse failure. 1435:Failed today by 1427: 1422: 1397: 1392: 1354:LurkingInChicago 1331: 1320: 1291: 1286: 1220: 1215: 1204: 1199: 1167: 1162: 1093: 1088: 1008: 998: 995: 967: 957: 954: 839: 829: 826: 745: 735: 732: 663:(U.S.)-based", " 586: 576: 573: 557: 551: 505: 499: 463: 457: 334:Chrysler Sunbeam 324: 319: 303: 297: 247: 242: 220:Chrysler Sunbeam 199: 194: 111: 106: 85: 84: 68: 54: 53: 47: 33: 26: 3317: 3316: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3308: 3307: 3306: 3244: 3239: 3175: 3170: 3159: 3093: 3088: 2958: 2953: 2913: 2908: 2841: 2838: 2830: 2827: 2786: 2783: 2775: 2772: 2739: 2734: 2728: 2700: 2685: 2680: 2673: 2601: 2596: 2578: 2573: 2461: 2455: 2423: 2417: 2378: 2373: 2366: 2343: 2341: 2305: 2300: 2291: 2289: 2261: 2256: 2174: 2168: 2160: 2075: 2070: 2040: 2036: 2028: 1985: 1980: 1974: 1959: 1954: 1914: 1909: 1901: 1787: 1768:Have you tried 1722: 1717: 1710: 1696: 1645: 1640: 1629: 1614: 1609: 1534: 1529: 1515:at the moment. 1459: 1425: 1420: 1412: 1408:Pan's Labyrinth 1395: 1390: 1315: 1313: 1289: 1284: 1277: 1218: 1213: 1202: 1197: 1165: 1160: 1091: 1086: 1050:Wanamaker organ 1037:Wanamaker organ 1033:Wanamaker organ 1029:Wanamaker organ 1020:Wanamaker organ 1007: 1004: 996: 993: 966: 963: 955: 952: 866:Reliable source 838: 835: 827: 824: 744: 741: 733: 730: 671:, (I would say 585: 582: 574: 571: 395:User:Jazznutuva 337: 322: 317: 245: 240: 197: 192: 109: 104: 98: 43: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3315: 3313: 3305: 3304: 3292: 3266: 3265: 3252: 3251: 3231: 3230: 3202:Ultimatum game 3162:Result: Delist 3158: 3156:Chicken (game) 3153: 3152: 3151: 3126: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3077: 3061:Endorse delist 3057: 3056: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3029:words to avoid 3025: 3012: 2990: 2989: 2970:Endorse delist 2967: 2966: 2965: 2920: 2900:Endorse Delist 2897: 2896: 2895: 2865: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2839: 2792: 2784: 2727: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2672: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2608: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2544: 2530: 2518: 2506: 2493: 2492: 2483: 2476: 2436: 2435: 2369:Result: Delist 2365: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2227: 2226: 2214: 2206: 2201: 2195: 2159: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2131: 2119: 2107: 2082: 2063: 2047: 2034: 2016: 2015: 1973: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1947: 1900: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1880: 1879: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1847: 1843: 1837: 1825: 1786: 1784:E. E. Cummings 1781: 1780: 1779: 1766: 1709: 1704: 1693: 1692: 1689: 1686: 1679: 1678: 1675: 1672: 1669: 1666: 1663: 1660: 1628: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1602: 1590: 1578: 1566: 1553: 1541: 1522: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1489: 1488: 1476: 1433: 1432: 1411: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1383: 1371: 1359: 1347: 1335: 1280:Result: Delist 1276: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1209: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1120: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1068: 1067: 1053: 1040: 1024: 1023: 1013: 1005: 985: 984: 983: 982: 964: 947: 946: 945: 944: 943: 910: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 861: 860: 859: 858: 857: 845: 844: 836: 816: 815: 802: 801: 791:As I explained 777: 776: 775: 774: 773: 772: 769: 759: 751: 750: 742: 725: 724: 723: 722: 721: 720: 709: 698: 688: 687: 684: 657:United Kingdom 644: 633: 632: 626: 625: 615: 614: 613: 612: 609: 606: 600: 599: 592: 591: 583: 564: 540: 517: 516: 515: 514: 513: 512: 488: 487: 484: 471: 470: 448:Road and Track 435: 434: 433: 432: 391: 390: 380: 379: 378: 374: 367: 352: 336: 331: 330: 329: 310: 275: 274: 273: 272: 271: 270: 253: 252: 223: 216: 211: 210: 204: 182: 170: 97: 92: 89: 88: 81: 80: 73: 62: 50: 49: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3314: 3303: 3300: 3296: 3293: 3291: 3288: 3282: 3276: 3271: 3268: 3267: 3264: 3261: 3260:LuciferMorgan 3257: 3254: 3253: 3250: 3247: 3242: 3236: 3233: 3232: 3229: 3226: 3222: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3215: 3212: 3207: 3203: 3199: 3195: 3194:Best response 3191: 3187: 3182: 3181: 3178: 3173: 3167: 3163: 3157: 3154: 3150: 3147: 3143: 3139: 3135: 3130: 3127: 3125: 3122: 3117: 3114: 3110: 3107: 3106: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3096: 3091: 3085: 3081: 3078: 3076: 3073: 3067: 3062: 3059: 3058: 3055: 3052: 3048: 3044: 3039: 3034: 3030: 3026: 3022: 3017: 3013: 3010: 3005: 3004: 3001: 2996: 2992: 2991: 2987: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2971: 2968: 2964: 2961: 2956: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2945: 2939: 2933: 2929: 2924: 2921: 2919: 2916: 2911: 2905: 2901: 2898: 2894: 2891: 2886: 2882: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2873: 2869: 2866: 2864: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2850: 2846: 2843: 2835: 2833: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2818: 2817:WegianWarrior 2814: 2813: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2793: 2791: 2788: 2780: 2778: 2769: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2760: 2755: 2751: 2746: 2745: 2742: 2737: 2732: 2726: 2723: 2719: 2716: 2712: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2703: 2697: 2692: 2691: 2688: 2683: 2677: 2671: 2668: 2658: 2655: 2651: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2641: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2632: 2628: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2620: 2616: 2612: 2609: 2607: 2604: 2599: 2593: 2590: 2584: 2581: 2576: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2564: 2563: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2552: 2548: 2545: 2543: 2540: 2539: 2534: 2531: 2529: 2526: 2522: 2519: 2517: 2514: 2510: 2507: 2505: 2502: 2498: 2495: 2494: 2491: 2488: 2484: 2481: 2480:User:SilkTork 2477: 2474: 2470: 2467: 2466:User:Briancua 2460: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2442: 2441:User:Briancua 2438: 2437: 2433: 2429: 2422: 2416: 2412: 2408: 2407:User:SilkTork 2404: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2395: 2391: 2385: 2384: 2381: 2376: 2370: 2364: 2361: 2357: 2354: 2349: 2339: 2335: 2332: 2331: 2320: 2317: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2308: 2303: 2297: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2282: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2273: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2264: 2259: 2252: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2243: 2239: 2235: 2234: 2231: 2225: 2222: 2220: 2219:JustZheng.com 2215: 2213: 2210: 2207: 2205: 2202: 2200: 2196: 2194: 2191: 2187: 2183: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2173: 2165: 2164: 2158: 2155: 2151: 2148: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2132: 2130: 2127: 2123: 2120: 2118: 2115: 2112: 2108: 2106: 2103: 2097: 2091: 2086: 2083: 2081: 2078: 2073: 2067: 2064: 2062: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2048: 2046: 2043: 2039: 2033: 2031: 2025: 2021: 2018: 2017: 2014: 2011: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2001: 1997: 1992: 1991: 1988: 1983: 1978: 1972: 1969: 1965: 1962: 1957: 1951: 1950:Place on hold 1948: 1946: 1943: 1939: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1930: 1926: 1921: 1920: 1917: 1912: 1905: 1899: 1896: 1892: 1889: 1885: 1882: 1881: 1878: 1875: 1869: 1863: 1859: 1858: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1842: 1838: 1836: 1832: 1831: 1829: 1826: 1824: 1821: 1817: 1813: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1804: 1798: 1797: 1794: 1791: 1785: 1782: 1778: 1775: 1771: 1767: 1765: 1762: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1751: 1745: 1739: 1735: 1729: 1728: 1725: 1720: 1714: 1708: 1705: 1703: 1702: 1699: 1690: 1687: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1676: 1674:Wolf ancestry 1673: 1670: 1667: 1664: 1661: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1652: 1651: 1648: 1643: 1637: 1633: 1627: 1624: 1620: 1617: 1612: 1606: 1603: 1601: 1598: 1594: 1591: 1589: 1586: 1582: 1579: 1577: 1574: 1570: 1567: 1565: 1562: 1558: 1554: 1552: 1549: 1545: 1542: 1540: 1537: 1532: 1526: 1523: 1521: 1518: 1514: 1510: 1507: 1506: 1501: 1498: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1487: 1484: 1480: 1477: 1475: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1457: 1452: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1443: 1438: 1431: 1428: 1423: 1417: 1414: 1413: 1410: 1409: 1401: 1398: 1393: 1387: 1384: 1382: 1379: 1378:LuciferMorgan 1375: 1372: 1370: 1367: 1363: 1360: 1358: 1355: 1351: 1348: 1346: 1343: 1339: 1336: 1334: 1329: 1326: 1323: 1318: 1311: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1302: 1296: 1295: 1292: 1287: 1281: 1275: 1274:U.S. Route 66 1272: 1260: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1235: 1231: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1221: 1216: 1210: 1208: 1205: 1200: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1188: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1179: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1168: 1163: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1133: 1130: 1125: 1124: 1121: 1119: 1116: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1097: 1094: 1089: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1077: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1066: 1063: 1058: 1054: 1051: 1046: 1041: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1014: 1012: 1009: 1001: 999: 990: 987: 986: 981: 978: 973: 972: 971: 968: 960: 958: 948: 942: 939: 935: 934: 933: 930: 926: 923: 922: 921: 918: 914: 911: 903: 900: 895: 894: 893: 890: 885: 884:Talbot Tagora 881: 877: 876: 875: 872: 867: 862: 856: 853: 849: 848: 847: 846: 843: 840: 832: 830: 820: 819: 818: 817: 814: 811: 806: 805: 804: 803: 800: 797: 792: 788: 784: 783: 779: 778: 770: 768: 765: 760: 757: 753: 752: 749: 746: 738: 736: 727: 726: 718: 716: 710: 707: 703: 699: 696: 692: 691: 690: 689: 685: 682: 678: 674: 670: 666: 665:grant (money) 662: 661:United States 658: 654: 650: 645: 642: 637: 636: 635: 634: 630: 629: 628: 627: 624: 621: 617: 616: 610: 607: 604: 603: 602: 601: 596: 595: 594: 593: 590: 587: 579: 577: 568: 565: 563: 560: 554: 548: 544: 541: 539: 536: 533: 529: 524: 523: 519: 518: 511: 508: 502: 496: 492: 491: 490: 489: 485: 483: 480: 475: 474: 473: 472: 469: 466: 460: 454: 449: 445: 440: 437: 436: 431: 428: 423: 422: 421: 418: 417:LuciferMorgan 414: 413: 412: 411: 408: 404: 400: 396: 389: 386: 381: 375: 372: 368: 364: 360: 356: 355: 353: 350: 346: 342: 339: 338: 335: 332: 328: 325: 320: 314: 311: 309: 306: 300: 294: 290: 285: 280: 277: 276: 269: 266: 261: 257: 256: 255: 254: 251: 248: 243: 237: 234: 233: 232: 229: 224: 221: 217: 213: 212: 208: 205: 203: 200: 195: 189: 187: 183: 181: 178: 174: 171: 169: 166: 162: 159: 158: 157: 156: 153: 148: 144: 139: 137: 133: 129: 125: 121: 116: 115: 112: 107: 102: 96: 93: 87: 86: 78: 74: 71: 67: 63: 60: 56: 55: 46: 41: 40: 35: 32: 28: 27: 19: 3294: 3269: 3255: 3234: 3225:Geometry guy 3220: 3211:Geometry guy 3188:: this one, 3183: 3161: 3160: 3141: 3133: 3128: 3115: 3105:Geometry guy 3103: 3079: 3060: 3051:Geometry guy 3037: 3020: 3008: 2999: 2994: 2969: 2927: 2922: 2899: 2890:Geometry guy 2884: 2867: 2855: 2851: 2811: 2810: 2794: 2767: 2753: 2750:User:Meekrob 2747: 2730: 2729: 2710: 2693: 2675: 2674: 2626: 2615:Ray of light 2610: 2591: 2562:Geometry guy 2560: 2546: 2538:Geometry guy 2536: 2532: 2520: 2508: 2496: 2487:Geometry guy 2402: 2389: 2386: 2368: 2367: 2347: 2333: 2295: 2237: 2236: 2228: 2223: 2216: 2211: 2208: 2203: 2198: 2185: 2181: 2166: 2162: 2161: 2157:Ray of Light 2133: 2121: 2110: 2084: 2065: 2049: 2029: 2023: 2019: 1993: 1976: 1975: 1949: 1937: 1922: 1903: 1902: 1883: 1827: 1811: 1799: 1789: 1788: 1730: 1712: 1711: 1694: 1680: 1668:Intelligence 1653: 1631: 1630: 1604: 1592: 1580: 1568: 1561:Geometry guy 1556: 1543: 1524: 1517:Geometry guy 1508: 1478: 1450: 1434: 1415: 1406: 1385: 1373: 1361: 1349: 1337: 1309: 1301:Geometry guy 1297: 1279: 1278: 1234:Geometry guy 1178:Geometry guy 1150: 1146: 1144: 1129:Geometry guy 1115:PrinceGloria 1076:PrinceGloria 1062:Geometry guy 1056: 1045:PrinceGloria 1015: 988: 938:PrinceGloria 924: 912: 889:PrinceGloria 810:PrinceGloria 782:Endorse fail 781: 780: 764:PrinceGloria 714: 712: 705: 701: 694: 620:PrinceGloria 567:Endorse fail 566: 542: 531: 521: 520: 479:PrinceGloria 439:List as a GA 438: 427:PrinceGloria 407:PrinceGloria 392: 385:Geometry guy 362: 348: 345:no consensus 344: 340: 312: 283: 279:List as a GA 278: 265:Geometry guy 259: 235: 228:Geometry guy 206: 185: 184: 172: 160: 140: 127: 123: 117: 100: 99: 95:Heian Palace 69: 37: 2725:Freemasonry 2525:Nehrams2020 2411:minor edits 1770:peer review 1734:Imdanumber1 1636:WP:SNOWBALL 1597:Nehrams2020 1437:Pandacomics 444:Motor Trend 36:This is an 3299:Balloonman 3121:Balloonman 2654:SidiLemine 2640:Balloonman 2631:SidiLemine 2619:SidiLemine 2513:Homestarmy 2421:GA nominee 2353:SidiLemine 2338:Balloonman 2316:SidiLemine 2281:SidiLemine 2272:SidiLemine 2242:SidiLemine 2224:added refs 2190:SidiLemine 2186:Added one. 2142:User:Giggy 2114:Balloonman 2058:Homestarmy 2010:Homestarmy 1888:Balloonman 1820:Homestarmy 1772:instead? - 1761:Homestarmy 1713:No action. 1605:List as GA 1593:List as GA 1581:List as GA 1573:Homestarmy 1569:List as GA 1557:List as GA 1483:Homestarmy 1366:Homestarmy 1256:SidiLemine 1230:SidiLemine 1187:SidiLemine 977:Homestarmy 929:Balloonman 917:Homestarmy 913:List as GA 899:Homestarmy 882:, but the 871:Homestarmy 852:Homestarmy 796:Homestarmy 787:Hall Caine 677:bankruptcy 669:subsidiary 543:List as GA 535:Balloonman 528:Balloonman 207:List as GA 188:List as GA 177:SidiLemine 173:List as GA 165:Homestarmy 161:List as GA 72:(archive) 3221:delisting 3033:straw man 2363:Beer pong 2251:This site 1774:Malkinann 1585:Malkinann 1461:Esprit15d 399:failed it 361:). There 289:WP:LAYOUT 132:talk page 3286:contribs 3275:Jayron32 3206:criteria 3066:Awadewit 3047:criteria 3021:believed 2943:contribs 2932:Jayron32 2928:Delisted 2860:Blueboar 2403:Analysis 2101:contribs 2090:Jayron32 1929:Dr. Cash 1873:contribs 1862:Jayron32 1744:contribs 1697:VanTucky 1469:contribs 659:(UK)", " 649:takeover 558:contribs 532:delisted 506:contribs 495:Jayron32 464:contribs 453:Jayron32 349:unlisted 304:contribs 293:Jayron32 3146:Gosgood 3080:Comment 2982:WP:NPOV 2923:Comment 2872:MSJapan 2868:Comment 2852:Comment 2805:, with 2799:compare 2795:Comment 2768:Comment 2759:MSJapan 2696:WP:UCGA 2670:Midrash 2611:Hold on 2547:Comment 2501:Atropos 2469:claimed 2394:ike9898 2238:Comment 2212:sourced 2134:Comment 1996:WP:UCGA 1835:WP:LEAD 1659:Hearing 1548:Atropos 1544:Comment 1525:Comment 1513:WP:LEAD 1509:Comment 1497:Atropos 1479:Comment 1442:Atropos 1176:one :) 1155:WP:PSTS 1016:Comment 989:Comment 925:Comment 653:strikes 236:Comment 147:article 143:WP:CITE 141:As the 136:WP:CITE 77:Page 24 59:Page 26 39:archive 3295:Delist 3270:Delist 3256:Delist 3235:Delist 3200:, and 3129:Delist 3116:Delist 2978:WP:NOR 2711:Delist 2627:Update 2592:Delist 2533:Delist 2521:Delist 2509:Delist 2497:Delist 2430:, and 2230:17Drew 2122:delist 2111:Delist 2085:Delist 2066:Delist 2054:WP:SCG 2050:Delist 2024:tagged 1938:delist 1884:Delist 1828:Delist 1812:Delist 1386:Delist 1374:Delist 1362:Delist 1350:delist 1338:Delist 1310:Delist 706:levels 673:fascia 341:Result 313:Update 152:Stca74 3176:♥Love 3166:WP:GA 3134:about 3094:♥Love 2740:♥Love 2715:Raime 2701:Giggy 2686:♥Love 2602:♥Love 2579:♥Love 2453:added 2415:added 2379:♥Love 2306:♥Love 2147:Bduke 2138:Masem 2076:♥Love 2030:Giggy 2000:Masem 1986:♥Love 1960:♥Love 1915:♥Love 1841:WP:EL 1803:Raime 1793:Raime 1750:email 1723:♥Love 1662:Smell 1646:♥Love 1634:(see 1615:♥Love 1426:♥Love 1248:WP:RS 282:< 16:< 3280:talk 3245:Love 3240:Lara 3171:Lara 3089:Lara 3084:here 3071:talk 3038:must 3016:lead 3014:The 2980:and 2974:WP:V 2959:Love 2954:Lara 2937:talk 2930:. -- 2914:Love 2909:Lara 2904:here 2856:have 2831:Love 2828:Lara 2776:Love 2773:Lara 2754:then 2735:Lara 2681:Lara 2597:Lara 2574:Lara 2390:ever 2374:Lara 2348:Done 2301:Lara 2296:Done 2262:Love 2257:Lara 2095:talk 2071:Lara 1981:Lara 1955:Lara 1910:Lara 1867:talk 1851:WP:V 1738:talk 1718:Lara 1671:Diet 1641:Lara 1610:Lara 1535:Love 1530:Lara 1465:talk 1421:Lara 1396:Love 1391:Lara 1290:Love 1285:Lara 1252:here 1244:here 1219:Love 1214:Lara 1203:Love 1198:Lara 1166:Love 1161:Lara 1092:Love 1087:Lara 997:Love 994:Lara 956:Love 953:Lara 828:Love 825:Lara 734:Love 731:Lara 655:", " 651:", " 575:Love 572:Lara 552:talk 547:T-75 500:talk 458:talk 446:and 359:2a/b 323:Love 318:Lara 298:talk 284:this 260:same 246:Love 241:Lara 198:Love 193:Lara 110:Love 105:Lara 79:) → 3142:not 2995:not 2885:not 1626:Dog 1458:.-- 1342:NE2 1319:O - 667:", 363:was 57:← ( 3223:. 3196:, 3192:, 3086:. 3068:| 2976:, 2812:no 2551:AW 2462:}} 2459:GA 2456:{{ 2447:, 2424:}} 2418:{{ 2405:. 2351:-- 2188:-- 2175:}} 2169:{{ 2056:. 2026:. 1927:. 1752:) 1559:. 1467:¤ 1456:3a 1328:Y? 1153:. 1057:do 1039:.) 708:"? 679:, 373:). 371:3a 343:: 128:2b 124:2a 61:) 48:. 3283:| 3277:| 3011:. 2940:| 2934:| 2840:C 2836:/ 2785:C 2781:/ 2434:. 2184:. 2098:| 2092:| 2042:P 2037:U 1870:| 1864:| 1853:. 1747:• 1741:• 1736:( 1471:) 1463:( 1330:) 1325:L 1322:R 1317:→ 1314:( 1282:- 1043:( 1006:C 1002:/ 965:C 961:/ 837:C 833:/ 743:C 739:/ 717:. 683:. 647:" 584:C 580:/ 555:| 549:| 503:| 497:| 461:| 455:| 301:| 295:| 75:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Good article reassessment/Archive 25 - Knowledge

Index