3544:. While I do not agree that "too many references" (one of the points brought up on the talk page) is really a valid reason to delist this article, there are clearly many other issues, particularly reference verifiability and neutrality, stability, length of lead, scope and the need for cleanup. However, the article was delisted two days ago, so at this point this debate should be closed and archived, or the article should be relisted, at least until this discussion is closed and a clear decision is reached. However, it seems to me that this article could have been outright delisted without being listed here, as it has several problems that cause it to easily not meet the GA criteria.
1412:. Not all of the concerns raised below are valid. In particular, the lead does not need citations as long as it summarizes material which is adequately sourced in the text. Furthermore, the GA requirements for inline citation are no longer as exacting as they used to be. However, Peter cohen's point is entirely valid, as are concerns raised that the reader simply does not know where to look to verify some of the claims. I suspect that this is just a matter of adding a handful of citations to Sáenz-Badillos or Hoffman. However, this has not been done, and I agree that the lead needs to be trimmed a little.
146:
diets do not get the same treatment: they are higher in fats, cholesterol and so on, hence more dangerous than vegan diets. Well-planned non-vegan diets do not get a mention. If one imagines going through the article and adding "poorly-planned" in front of every criticism of a non-vegan diet, the bias becomes obvious. Animal farming does not get the same privilige either: it is the worst case of intensive factory farming that comes under the spotlight, rather than the best practice, such as organic, well-fare and environmentally conscious farming.
738:, regardless of the subject of the article. The issue with in-line citations is NOT that something is contentious. Sure, if someone reads something and says "I don't believe that" it needs a citation, HOWEVER, direct quotes, even those direct quotes that are uncontentious, need citations. Claims in the superlative (so-and-so was the first/best/largest/smallest/worst/etc.) always need citations. Statistics always need citations. Opinions need citations. Analysis (so-and-so did X because of Y) need citations. There is no need to
821:(XXG) is an openly edited encyclopedia, and has MUCH higher standards for transparency in its sources, and rightfully so. While I have trust that SA has vetted its articles, edited them well, and checked its sources, I cannot hold the same trust in any Knowledge (XXG) article. Knowledge (XXG) cannot be held to the same standards as something like Scientific American because it is a different kind of publication, and its very nature means it must be held to a higher standard of referencing. --
780:. All I did was to nominate this article - after it failed I did add a couple of sentences. And I nominated this article - as I said - because it looks good. I'm not seeking a "green dot" but pointing out a flaw in the process: in the real world in-line citations are not needed as long as references are given. A year ago, this was also true for Knowledge (XXG). And because of the awkward coding for in-line citations we are over-looking good work on technicalities of our own making. Cheers!
751:. Did someone ELSE look at his report cards and decide he was a good student? If so, do that person the courtesy by citing their work. If your goal is to make this article the best possible article it can be, then people here will give you all they have to help you do so. If your goal is to get a green plus on the talk page, and that's it, you will not find much sympathy. The GA project, as with all projects at Knowledge (XXG), is about improving articles, no more and no less.--
2271:; which focuses in-depth on the racial segregation, violence and the initial stirrings of the civil rights movement which occurred specifically in Mobile. This isn't just a History issue either, the Education section says nothing about school integration. The economics and demographics sections fails to adequately discuss race issues. It's horrendous. Not only this, but as you can see in my review there are plenty of other issues (even with some of the fixes made recently).
303:. Honestly, I feel that the article reads in an unbalanced fashion. While it is true that the majority of mainstream sources don't have much criticism of a vegan diet health-wise, I had a hell of time getting a neutral mention of what the multiple reliable sources reported as cases of vegan baby malnutrition into the article at all. In consideration of the general tone, and the missing vital stats that Kellen mentioned, I think the article should be delisted.
371:- actually, I find neither a good idea. I HATE "criticism" sections, they are a way of sidelining some views on the subject, as well as trying to do away with NPOV issues ("what do you want? there is a criticism section!"). I believe the article should be written in a balanced way in all. I also am not sure whether Bourdain is that notable. OTOH, I am not that convinced that the medical community is so unanimous in their praise of the benefits of veganism.
66:
359:- I think that simply creating a subsection of the Ethical concerns section labeled "Criticisms," then simply moving the paragraphs from Jarvis and Davis into that subsection would go along way. I think in this case, just having a section boldly titled "Criticisms" would be useful, rather than scattering said criticisms throught the article. Also, I think that mentioning Bourdain would be a very good idea.
31:
714:. What bothers me about this article is that it is actually good ...except for the in-line citations. Nothing strikes me as being contentious. I do not doubt everything could be referenced. Unfortunately, the editors did not know about the in-line citation policy or were baffled by the code. So a truly encyclopedic article is dissed while we stamp GA on ephemeral pop culture articles. Strange. Cheers!
497:
precisely, to the point where the lead is almost more detailed about it than the body. Secondly, the first line of the history section seems to be somewhat off, it acts like its going to give a few reasons why the traditional founding date of the church isn't likely accurate, but then only says one thing. Also, it doesn't say who is traditionally placing the date, is that in the first reference?
2104:- improvements are significant, but it still needs some minor work. The lead could still be expanded more. I agree with Drewcifer; the plot section could be more straight-forward. However, the referencing and citation issues have now been completely fixed. It is mostly the lead I am concerned with, and it is certainly not terrible, but is is just not completely adequate yet.
1772:
to go as well---it appears to be OR as is. The records/statistics section appears that it might have a reference, but if that reference is to cover all the cited facts, it should be associated with them all. (On a stable piece of work, one citation would be fine, but when it is an electronic format where people can add new items, each bullet needs it's own reference.)
643:"This lack of a degree may have hurt Fessenden's employment opportunities—when McGill University established an electrical engineering department, Fessenden was turned down on an application to be the chairman, in favor of an American.)" Contains an analysis of events. Analysis is opinion. Opinions must exist outside of Knowledge (XXG) and be properly cited.
1024:
this case includes other media. An excellent addition to the article would be some (not too many!) embedded music clips to illustrate the points being made about the style - like what 'Dem Bow' sounds like. Currently a couple of the references are links to music sites offering samples of
Reggaeton albums, but that's not really precise enough to be useful.
724:
to learn more about a topic. So technically, not a single thing in this article is actually indicated as being a reference :/. (A section labelled "References" would be better, assuming that you know for a fact that nothing in there actually should be in a further reading section) There is a stray inline citation number, but it seems to be orphaned.
1373:. There isn't much that is controversial here, and most of the article is summary style, and so statements can be sourced in subarticles. It doesn't currently meet the GA criterion for citation, but it would not be too much work to fix it. The reader just needs to have an idea which of the main references to consult for which parts of the article.
2697:, The dispute doesn't seem to of resulted in any recent article instability, and even without more citations, it still looks pretty well-referenced. However, as long as the details you want in this article are, indeed, well-referenced and useful for mentioning in the article about this subject, I don't understand why they should be excluded....
2406:
cited don't seem to have any references themselves, so I really question how reliable this site is. I can't even figure out who writes
Blabbermouth.net, also a bad sign. However, rock bands aren't really an area of articles that i'm very familiar with, so I thought i'd mention my concerns first before making an opinion one way or another.
571:. It would have been nice if this had been failed with a review instead of quick-failed, as then it would not have been brought here. It doesn't need many citations, but it does need some, and the lead needs to be fixed to summarize the article. Anyway, this reassessment should give plenty for editors to go on in improving the article.
1557:- The article is in dire need of more referencing. I agree with Wrad; a general referencing template rather than scattered fact tags would be more appropriate here. The lead is also rather long; 5 paragraphs is pretty lengthy for a 62 kilobyte article. I would suggest combining paragraphs and/or possibly trimming some information out.
1820:}} is a copyright tag, not a fair use rationale. The tag indentifies it as a fair use image, but the image description needs to include specifically why this exact image can be used on Knowledge (XXG). Fair use images need to have fair use rationales along with a copyright tag, or else may be subject to deletion. Stating "
584:
decently written and is well researched. The problem is no in-line citations but in-line citations - as I understand - do not have a consensus at the GA level. Compared to a non-Wikipedian article, this article is not so bad. Certainly the main writers have made a good constructive contribution to
Knowledge (XXG).
646:"Interested in increasing his skills in the electrical field, he moved to New York City in 1886, with hopes of gaining employment with the famous inventor, Thomas Edison. " interprets the motives of a person. Such interpretations are opinion, and must be tied to a reliable source where the opinion is expressed.
3227:
and a movie poster that is inappropriately being used in this article (the copyright on the image clearly states it is only appropriate for fail use when it is used to provide critical commentary on the film in question or the poster it self; additionally, the fair use rationale for this image should
2390:
Also because i have references covering entire paragraphs the reviewer did not take the time to read the sources and believes that the article requires more sources. I don't see the point of having the same source five times in a paragraph when one can go at the end. I'm not renominating it at GAC to
723:
Part of the problem might be that your references aren't labelled as references, but instead are in the "further reading" section. A further reading section is typically for material that isn't being used to source the article, but which might contain media which would be helpful for a reader seeking
633:
The big issue seems to be that the article lacks any inline citations where specific facts are linked to specific sources. Thus, though there is a list of references, none of those references are actually being used to support anything in the article. While not every single sentance needs be cited,
171:
also be appropriate"? Likewise the discussion of athletes: how can this be discussed without saying that high-protein diets are often recommended to athletes, and that this is not so easy to achieve on a vegan diet? Then anecdotal evidence is used to suggest that a vegan diet leads to better athletic
1784:
I took the suggestions here and I believe I have improved the article back to the GA point. I agree that the controversial question section was OR and have removed it. I have also tightened the prose, and reduced the dependency on the word "contestant" in the gameplay section. I have two issues that
1771:
I reached basically the same conclusions that Raime did, but believe it deserves the weak keep rather than the weak delete. The picture needs a rationale or needs to go, but beyond that I felt taht it meets the criteria for a GA. The section on "controversial questions" needs a citation or it needs
1063:
the GA template was just placed on the article's talk page without any apparent GAC notification before it, in other words I don't think this was ever taken to GAC. About the issues expresed here, I don't think this is
Original Reasearch since after reading it appears to match what is generally said
859:
reference the reader should consult. There is probably just one main source for most of the sections, but which one is it? I agree that this article probably should not have been quick failed, but it isn't GA standard at the moment. Indeed, as mentioned by
Homestarmy, the lead does not summarize the
254:
I typically contribute to the article from a "counter-vegan" perspective, if you will, and I'm not sure we need to put a whole lot more criticism into the article. Could you give specific examples of passages that need a "counter-vegan" rebuttal? Though you do have a good point - we need to gather
145:
For example, throughout the article, the vegan diet presented is the "well-planned vegan diet". Thus there is a section on "health benefits" but not one on "health risks", only one on "health precautions". Malnutrition is blamed on the diet being poorly planned, rather than it being vegan. Non-vegan
112:
There are some other issues apart from the POV concerns. First, the lead is somewhat inadequate at summarizing the large health section and does not mention vegan cuisine. Also, there is surely more that can be said about the history of veganism: this is definitely a broadness issue in an article on
2608:
keep, I would rate this article as about a 70. Basically, I am calling for support to revert the removals in the edit documented here and make some sort of clear statement that removing these kinds of details degrades the quality of the encyclopedia. I am calling for consensus on the debate about
2559:
started removing a lot of the details in the article. Most of the disagreement relates to how heavily an article should be cited. If I cited multiple points from the same source separately he removed many of the multiple citations. I did not totally disagree and relented to many of the changes.
2153:
The lead is a bit too short for my tastes, i'd prefer if it included something on the production section, and general expansion of it overall. However, I do think it just barely summarizes at least most of the article. Other than that, I see no other problems. Also, although this GA/R is quite old,
2091:
I cleaned the article up somewhat, but it would be great if the original editors would continue to improve it. I expanded the lead a little, removed the statements in the review section (one had a dead link), fixed the plot statement (it looks like the original plot before the film was released was
1998:
The biggest problem with the article is alot of POV prose, most notably in the
Reviews and Rating controversy. Sentences like "Some critics, perhaps disparagingly, complained that characters confronting problems from an evangelical Christian worldview belonged in Sunday School rather than portrayed
1857:
In terms of the
Records and statistics section, I know it needs to be sourced, but I'm not sure how it can be sourced. For instance, the statistics that deal with total or average winnings; the source for those stats is every single episode of the show. Do you have any suggestion how I can go about
1352:
A nice article, but hugely under-referenced. The order of the cases under declension is rather curious, I notice that the main article on the subject adheres to the standard order. The description of it as a universal church language is also poor, it was the universal language of the
Western church
1339:
Although it seems some of the general references at the bottom likely cover much of this article, I have another concern. Latin is such an extremely important language in terms of influence on western language, that I don't understand why the article is as short as it is, surely the history section
117:
has a point about stating the obvious: on reading the article, I couldn't help wondering "if veganism is so great, why are there so few vegans?" This has many obvious answers, from ignorance through to perceptions about vegans and the vegan diet, but the article does not mention them. I'm sure some
2330:
Much of the economy section is unreferenced, and this section is LOADED with stats and opinions, like, for one example, "The rapidly growing auto industry in
Alabama has also resulted in over 2,800 new jobs created in Mobile." or for another "Mobile's unemployment rate is 5.1%." When was it that?
2242:
After reading the article, and the comments by VanTucky I must say I agree that little or no information about segregation is included. It took me about five minutes to find multiple pages on the net about this and I'm surprised more isn't included in the article. I strongly recommend that more is
1023:
Certainly possible, but appropriate? What would pictures tell us about a musical style that the words don't? Is there information lacking that is important enough to de-list the article? On the other hand, footnote 5 of the Good
Article criteria, which I hadn't noticed before, says that 'image' in
742:
by over-citing an article and citing every sentance, which would just be spiteful. However, it is good scholarly practice, when a source is used to produce an idea, that the particular source is credited. That is all we ask; credit the source for the ideas in this article, so we know whose ideas
701:
The lead is too short, seems to only mention his radio work and basic facts that would be in any biography, even though much of the article content doesn't concern his work with radio things. (For example, the more detailed biographical information on his early life, his early work, and his death)
583:
The article was quick-failed. I am disputing the contention that the article has a complete lack of reliable sources. The references list found under 'Further reading' seem reliable to me. It does not contain any in-line citations but the references are reliable with varied sources. The article is
162:
Other arguments: confusing, and possibly even straw man. I don't see a huge difference between the utilitarian and ethical perspective: both ultimately come down to the idea that animals should not be made to suffer so humans can have a broader diet. The two counter-opinions are hardly impressive,
789:
Really? Because the last 3 non-fiction books I read all used either footnotes or endnotes. There probably wasn't a page in the book without some kind of direct reference... And I am sorry I got heated. It gets tiring spending time carefully reading and reviewing an article only to have someone
444:
didn't seem too unbalanced to this ovo-lacto-vegetarian. I think the ethical and other arguments bits can do with some restructuring. Singer seems to get mentioned twice. But I don't think this is enough to delist. No need to say someoen is a PhD candidate. The key thing is whether there comments
382:
Agreed that the tag should be removed, but I was allowing time for others to confirm/disconfirm my research that there are not many other applicable sources for vegan demographics. I have to again ask for more specific criticisms of the article as POV since the article has changed little from the
141:
I'm sure veganism is much misrepresented and much misunderstood, and there is a good case to be made for the benefits of the vegan diet and lifestyle, but it is not the job of an encyclopedia article to make a case: it should read as if written by someone who is indifferent to whether more people
2405:
I was about to vote keep because none of the reasons given represent real failures of the GA criteria, but after checking one of the websites of several references, I have another concern. Live-metal.net describes its authors as "...a web site run by some dudes who love metal.", and the articles
1231:
This is getting much better, but the inline cites magically disappear about halfway through the article. (the last one in the Classification and Terminology section) and several sections are still unreferenced. Keep working this one up, and continue to reference the article, and objections will
820:
Scientific American is an edited journal, with rather high standards for inclusion of information and a rather strict editorial and peer-review process; there is a reasonable standard of trust in those processes that makes the information there decidedly more reliable and trustworthy. Knowledge
1581:
Several of the references appear very authoritative and general in nature, there seem to be compleate works on the History of the Hebrew language and a phonetics book, while there aren't very many of them, how can we be sure they aren't referencing their respective parts of the article at all?
2003:
The plot section also has some prose problems. Instead of going into all the sub-plots, I'd recommend a much more straight-forward "this happened then this happened." The thing is, the plot section should ideally by in-universe. Also, the later part of the section, the big quote and the last
496:
Two things that I want to comment on. Firstly, the lead mentions that the church was repaired and expanded during a certain time period, but the article only seems to mention that it was expanded and damaged, but never repaired. There also don't seem to be specifics on what the expansion was
175:
Precautions: give risks first, then explain how a well-planned diet avoids these risks. This applies both to the "specific nutrients" and the "pregnancy and childhood" sections. I again suggest imagining how these sections would read if they were discussing the health risks of a non-vegan
482:
GA/R restarted due to extremely large gap between time of initial start and the latest comments. Even the name changed in the time the review was going on :/. This is a procedural nomination, (though I admit, i'm sort of inventing the procedure) previous review is archived in archive 30.
1799:
I am not sure how to cite the Records and statistics section. Essentially, it is just collated data from watching the show, but could probably be grokked from the episode recaps provided on the official website. As far as I know, there isn't one distinct statistic-keeping source for the
2785:
work? -- and if he feels that this issue impacted his RFA, his ambitions would be better served by correcting those actions of his which caused a raft of Oppose votes than by forum shopping. A GAR nomination on an article for which he pushed for GA status in the first place smacks of
2760:
that were as thick as every sentence in spots, each and every one an item of uncontroversial statistical fact already referenced below in a list of citations that I very properly did not touch. Tony's overeager inline citations flout official policy: "All quotations and any material
1545:. Huge chunks of sections are completely unreferenced, starting with the origins section. Rather than asking for fact tags, which would really mke the article look ugly, just look over the article. If you see sections without inline citations, add them. They will not be hard to find.
2140:
Somebody else is going to have to do the lead and plot, those are my two weak points on Knowledge (XXG), and I haven't seen the film so I have no info on the plot. Also, I believe the original editor who brought it up to GA status hasn't been editing on Knowledge (XXG) for a while.
3568:- Cleanup and verification banners are a quick-fail. Copyrighted image of the magazine cover is not covered by fair use. External links need to be removed from the body. References have formatting errors that need to be corrected. That's in addition to the aforementioned issues.
607:
That's only if the article has been fully reviewed and the ONLY reason was the lack of references. Since this was a quick-fail, the reviewer can't say that it was the only problem because they haven't given it a full review. I think that's the explanation anyways. Cheers,
229:
To be more specific the article is very "pro-vegan" meaning that there is very little mention of the "counter-vegan" point of view. Also as the tag in the Demographics says the section lacks a more worldwide point of view most noticably in areas such as Asia, and Africa.
166:
Benefits: "The American Dietetic Association states that well-planned vegan diets can also be appropriate for life cycles requiring high nutritional intake such as pregnancy, lactation, childhood, and adolescence." Answers an unasked question: why "well-planned", and why
1203:
First quarter is well in-line cited, then these drop off the page after that. I'm sure all the statements are true and given the broad list of additional reading sources, I doubt that such in-lines can't be fixed in the future, but for right now, should be delisted.
298:
is quite notably anti-vegan and vegetarian. In almost several of his best sellers he declaims veganism. While mentioning that there is an mainstream objection to the diet on the grounds that its strictures limit gastronomical joie de vivre might seem trivial, it is an
217:
Criticism is provided in 'Ethical concerns' section by POV of Davis and Jarvis, also various health precautions are included throughout the article. The article has barely changed since original GA review, so specific criticism of POV-ness would be appreciated.
2550:
This is a very unusual nomination. I have nominated several things here for lack of references. In this case, I am nominating an article that has had editorial disagreement. I did a lot of work in late July and early August to get this article promoted to
2708:
and restore citations. The only time I could imagine an article with too many citations would be when one fact is cited with 5 different sources, or when every single sentence is cited. Removing a fact's only reliable citation borders on vandalism.
733:
Reply to Wassupwestcoast: Please avoid casting aspersions on every person who works at the GA project because a) some other articles that are below standard have been passed and b) Most of us hold all article to the exact same standards, those of
634:
certain types of statements (statistics, direct quotes, controversial or challengable statements, superlative statements, etc.) should have them. For example, here is a PARTIAL list of ideas that seem to beg for support from a specific reference:
945:
Per the lack of referencing in Reggaeton around the world and the absolutely appalling Musical characteristics section. I may have missed it, but I didn't see any images either. For something this popular, there has got to be a free image or two.
195:; the former dispels myths about steroid use, while still emphasising the health risks, whereas the latter is just hopelessly defensive, combining legitimate criticism with anti-Masonry in a totally unhelpful way. Good luck with this one.
255:
a more global view particularly in the demographic section. Kellen has found some good sources that should be integrated into the article. There just isn't a lot of information out there about many parts of the world, though. Cheers,
2316:
does cover this some. While I would not expect EVERYTHING from that article to appear here (this article should be a sumamry), it should mention SOMETHING of it. Also, some other minor things we might as well fix while we are at it:
1494:
no. How would you like it of your Significant Other gave you an ultimatum: Shape up or I'm leaving you. Then when you ask what you need to do to shape up, he/she doesn't reply... listing an article on GA/R is such an ultimatum. :-) --
242:- most governments do not record details of diet in their census, and so it's difficult to find reliable sources about numbers of vegans worldwide. I think there's an information-gathering attempt on the Talk page about this issue. -
595:
2288:. The article is spotty. Some sections are too short. The writing is often sloppy. Segregation and integration merit additional treatment. I wouldn't say it's "horrendous", but I agree that it's not GA-class in its current form.
186:
I am coming to the opinion that it is very difficult to achieve NPOV on topics embraced enthusiastically by a minority, but misunderstood more widely. The temptation for advocacy and/or defensiveness is just too great. Compare
121:
The main concern below is undoubtedly point of view. Since I have great respect for the two GA reviewers who passed the article without raising point of view concerns, I will try to explain. First, neutral point of view is not
1822:
This image is of a screencap of the television series "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?", it is intended for use in the article "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?" to visually aid and provide critical commentery on the
654:
This again is NOT a comprehensive list of uncited ideas, merely a few choice selections from the first few paragraphs. Since the article lacks ANY inline citations, it can be quickfailed, since there is certain to be
2813:
is not the place to resolve editorial disputes. The GA criteria set a minimum standard for citation, and this article meets them. Beyond that, they do not specify how much inline citation there should be. Please use
1289:
are not being met. Specifically, criteria 2 is the problem; this article is well below standard with regards to its level of referencing. There are no inline citations at all, and many places seem to beg for them.
1190:
I'm not sure if there are MoS related citation policies concerning language articles or not, but in the absense of such guidelines coming to light, it appears many of this article's sections are mostly unreferenced.
431:
per POV concerns. With some re-tooling this article could be quite good. Start by removing the pig photo. Consider beefing up (sorry) the sections on the impact of the vegan movement and reaction to the movement.
277:
There are also few, if any, notable "counter-vegans." There's a variety of people, including vegan orgs, pointing out the need for supplementation, so this is covered extensively in 'health,' but not much else.
1668:
per the above delist votes. There are various points at which reference is made to what moat scholars think (e.g. on the classificaiton of the modern language) but no example citations are given, only those of
2004:
paragraph don't fit with the rest of the section. I'd recommend giving that stuff a subsection of some sort. Also, there are a few more POV issues here too: "This supplies both poignant and comedic moments."
1638:
But which books reference which material? Without properly formatted inline cites, we have no way to link any fact, statement, opinion, analysis, statistic, quote, or anything else to a specific reference.
1043:
Although I don't agree that images are an issue, referencing, or at least citation, seems to be - only two citations after the first third of the article. May be easily fixable from the existing references.
149:
In addition to this bias, vegan perspective is occasionally presented as fact, there are places where a balance of pro- and counter- is not achieved, or POV is introduced by giving the pro- sources the last
108:
the article. However, since the discussion below is not very elaborate, I give detailed comments on why the article does not currently meet the good article criteria, as if this were an individual delist.
649:"Fessenden wrote "Do not know anything about electricity, but can learn pretty quick", to which Edison replied "Have enough men now who do not know about electricity". " More unattributed direct quotes.
1999:
in film, as if to say a film could not be well made or entertain with such a worldview." and "yet some reviewers hint that Hollywood often doesn't do as well." should be changed to a more neutral tone.
270:
The demographics section is actually a virtually unsolvable problem; there are no good statistics for number of vegans almost anywhere in the world. The research has just not been done yet. I did some
2580:
and got one response that supported my opinion that greater citation detail was a positive for our international audience. I am bringing the article here to get some consensus regarding edits like
347:- the article does read POV, sections underdeveloped/stubby, the section lacking worldwide view should be remodelled so that the tag would not be applicable etc. This is clearly not a good article.
2931:– it does not contain any development information or what the developers envisioned, its impact on the real-world. Although written well, I am led to believe that it is not broad in its coverage.
2944:
Have to agree that it pretty much only using primary sources with only a few hints of how development came about. Was passed last year, so more recent changes would likely have invalidated it. --
3434:
This article fails so many criteria, it's not realistic to believe it can be improved quickly, particularly considering the stability issues and disputed content including a request for comment.
1428:
at this time, specifically criteria 2 (b) seems to be lacking. Many parts of this article have unverifiable statements which are not supported by inline citations where they seem to need them.
104:: This article has been languishing here for too long, so I am going to archive. I believe that the point of view concerns raised below are valid, and have not been addressed, so I am going to
2345:
This looks like MUCH too many fixes for a hold or even for some quick fixes to be made here in a short time. I would recommend making these fixes, and trying again for a new nomination. --
640:"At the age of eighteen, Fessenden left Bishop's without having been awarded a degree, even though he had "done substantially all the work necessary". " Direct quote. Needs attribution.
2968:
This is a very readable and well-researched piece of in-universe writing, spiced up with one or two interesting (admittedly unsourced) speculations, and some helpful original research.
2777:
citations.) That he characterizes this as vandalism verges on personal attack -- given that I was editing this article a year and a half before he ever noticed it, should I claim that
2312:
I would endorse the above sentiments. It seems to fail the broadness requirement pretty easily, especially given the importance of racial segregation. Indeed, however, the article
2433:
Those sites sound fairly decent as references then. And, as I said before, the review doesn't really seem to of revealed any deficiences of the article related to the GA criteria.
3232:
there is a main article link to a redlink article, there are inconsistencies in formatting voting results (ie. 54-22 vs. 12/91), I believe the use of dashes needs to be corrected,
2560:
However, as he continued this, I began to feel he was taking destructive action. We have gone back and forth on our talk pages. The debate provide great fodder to derail my
743:
are being reported here. For example, when you say that "While growing up, Reginald was an accomplished student." it is an unsupported statement. Besides bordering on the
1691:
2128:
I'm happy to say this article is much better since the improvements. The only remaining issues (small issues) are the lead and the plot section. Job well done Nehrams!
76:
58:
159:
Ethical concerns: there are certainly those who argue that animals do not have rights in human society in the way that humans do, but no such counter-opinion is given.
156:
The last sentence of the first paragraph arguably presents a vegan perspective as fact. The last sentence of the lead needs expansion to achieve a neutral perspective.
811:
How about 'Scientific American'? Articles about the size of an Wikpedia article. No in-line citations. Just a short further reading. Sorry, I'm quibbling. Cheers!
855:. I'm one of those here who believes GA should not have a very stringent inline citation requirement, but I still would like there to be some clue in the article
3228:
be specific to each article in which it is used, not a blanket FUR for all uses), the years are not wikified in full dates and some dates are not wikified at all
118:
of these can be sourced. On the other hand, I accept the argument that since no further data on demographics can be reliably sourced, it should not be included.
2024:, though using these are not a GA requirement. Consistency and proper attribution, however, are required, and the templates help do alot of that work for you.
134:
are missing the main point when they talk about "very little mention of the counter-vegan point of view" and more "counter-vegan rebuttals". Instead, echoing
3396:
as reviewer :). The copyright issue seems to have been fixed, so in my view this can now be listed, but in view of the initial comment, this is Lara's call.
1127:
A clear consensus here, including from a major contributor. Good luck improving the article, and with the renomination (maybe Jayron could be the reviewer).
860:
article adequately. Anyway, it should not be too much work to raise the article to GA standard, as the content is excellent. I hope someone gives it a shot.
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
1854:
I have replaced the image with one of a smaller size and added the rationale template, so hopefully that will fix the non-free use guidelines for the image.
1750:
but the second paragraph could use some prose work. The external links section seems mostly irrelevant - why are IMDb links to classmate biographies needed?
126:
achieved by giving an appropriate balance of reliably sourced pro-vegan and counter-vegan opinion, although this is, of course, important. I think that
3362:
I would go for PR first. There is still the issue with stubby areas. The one sentence paragraphs can probably be worked into fewer, larger paragraphs.
1705:. The issues raised appear to have been addressed and there is certainly no consensus here to delist the article, so it retains its current GA status.
996:
Actually, criterion 6 states that GAs should be appropriately illustrated, where possible. It is certainly possible to find images for this article. --
2061:
and WikiProject Film's guidelines. I think the issue with the quotations above is due more to poor writing than bias, but either way it needs fixing.
1858:
sourcing these statistics? For now, I've just commented out the section, which should also remove the last lingering issue that this GAR addresses. —
445:
were accepted by a peer-review journal. The nutrition stuff seems to be reasonably thorough and largely sourced from general medical publications.--
3092:
It is of my opinion that this article is not "broad in its coverage" because of a lack of development section. All listed video game articles at
1817:
1793:
2334:
The lead is a bit sketchy as well. It is a jumble of random facts from the article, poorly organized and not really as summary, as expected per
2267:
in its history section is woefully inadequate. The ironic thing is, the trivia section (oh, I'm sorry, "In popular culture") mentions Ken Burn's
747:, it doesn't say where this analysis comes from. Did YOU look at his report cards and decide he was a good student? I hope not, because that's
38:
17:
1826:
1730:
Lead needs work, the only picture lacks a fair-use rationale. No External links section. Could also be expanded substantially, I believe.
1825:" is inadequate. The lack of a rationale is a serious issue that needs to be addressed for this article to meet criteria. And per criteria
1621:
The titles suggest to me that the books do reference the material, but i'm not familiar enough with this article to be certain of that...
637:"While growing up, Reginald was an accomplished student." Expresses an opinion. This opinion belongs to someone. Cite who it belongs to.
2671:
per my statements made on the talk page earlier and the nom. Bring back the removed citations because most if not all of them fall under
406:
I think not, obviously. I have recently added demographics for two more countries, so this might ease some of the criticism in any case.
1789:
2473:, and this does not appear to have been so. The referencing looks fine, the article is broad enough. This seems GA worthy easily. --
2469:
I can see NOTHING wrong with the article in the state that it is in. Redlinks are never an issue unless the article is OVERLINKED per
2735:
2650:
2619:
2338:, but really just a bunch of random facts. The lead needs to be expanded and better organized, into, you know, paragraphs, and such.
2174:
Delisted by VanTucky as having established consensus to delist. Recommended clean up and renomination at GAN when fixes are made.
617:
How can such a situation ever arise? If no references equals a quick fail then logically a full review would never be done. Cheers!
397:
This review is quite out of date. While the article content overall doesn't seem to of changed much, should this GA/R be restarted?
3510:. Issues concering the use of references, lack of vital information and structuring has lead a contributer to doubt its GA status
3052:
2739:
2654:
2623:
1003:
925:
415:
By restarted, I mean that it can begin again so that there will be a result more reflective of the current state of the article.
2743:
2658:
2627:
1681:
due to lack of in-line citations. The lead paragraph has no citations. The History section is also woefully under-referenced.
1353:
and this should be clarified. And the retreat of the language should be identified as earlier when literary works such as the
2484:
2356:
1650:
1607:
1515:
1484:
1439:
1301:
1243:
1154:
832:
801:
762:
670:
2020:
The formatting of the in-line citations are inconsistent with usual style and even with each other. I would recommend using
1756:"Records and statistics" sections need references. However, other than those sections, I don't see many referencing issues.
511:
487:
476:
2584:
September 24th edit made after the September 21st feedback at PR. In its current state (which I consider vandalized by
2327:
The education section is unreferenced, and it contains stats, and dollar amounts, and the like. These need references.
3225:
I don't believe this article received an adequate review. There is a copyright image which lacks a fair use rationale,
3110:
3039:
2853:
a discussion forum, but that serves only to emphasise further the point that it is not the place for this discussion.
274:
but this yielded few results. Since there is no one we can cite, I do not believe this is a good reason for delisting.
2320:
The transportation section is unreferenced AND it contains an external link in the text, which is contraindicated by
2092:
kept and then just expanded upon), switched over to the citation templates, and removed some of the external links.--
138:
below, neutral point of view is primarily achieved by writing and structuring the article from a neutral perspective.
456:
2415:
Live-metal is the source. It is an interview done for the actual website. Blabbermouth is run by Borivoj Krgin and
2313:
2244:
3507:
2770:
2765:
should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (emphasis in the original, from
2756:
Tony is misrepresenting the situation. I removed no citations; I simply trimmed back an overwhelming number of
2672:
1340:
deserves some expansion at least? While it is using summary style, there's such a thing as too short a summary.
2684:
1504:
As a counter arguement, sometimes a spouse is so out of line, they should KNOW when they have screwed up... --
3270:
Seems much improved. The references are still a little messy, but other than that the article seems decent.
2263:
An article on a major city in the deep south which doesn't mention segregation and the civil rights movement
3576:
3442:
3370:
3156:
1539:
684:
470:. I agree there is no reason to delist this straightforward factual article, and there has been no dissent.
3588:
3560:
3535:
3516:
3454:
3414:
3402:
3382:
3357:
3345:
3321:
3274:
3261:
3247:
3168:
3132:
3123:
3100:
3096:
all have development sections, and several character articles have also been delisted for the same reason.
3032:
3014:
2990:
2978:
2963:
2951:
2935:
2859:
2844:
2824:
2798:
2748:
2713:
2701:
2689:
2663:
2632:
2529:
2513:
2489:
2461:
2449:
2437:
2423:
2410:
2395:
2361:
2304:
2292:
2280:
2255:
2232:
2158:
2145:
2132:
2120:
2096:
2083:
2067:
2048:
1923:
1914:
1902:
1885:
1862:
1849:
1809:
1776:
1763:
1734:
1721:
1711:
1685:
1673:
1655:
1625:
1612:
1586:
1573:
1549:
1520:
1499:
1489:
1464:
1444:
1418:
1391:
1379:
1365:
1344:
1331:
1306:
1279:
1248:
1226:
1195:
1178:
1159:
1133:
1106:
1096:
1048:
1028:
1014:
987:
967:
955:
936:
893:
866:
837:
815:
806:
784:
767:
728:
718:
706:
691:
675:
621:
612:
602:
588:
577:
550:
524:
501:
449:
436:
419:
410:
401:
387:
375:
363:
351:
337:
320:
309:
282:
259:
246:
234:
222:
211:
201:
3466:
3398:
3185:
2974:
2855:
2820:
2731:
2646:
2615:
1953:
1707:
1414:
1375:
1275:
1129:
889:
862:
573:
472:
197:
2959:
Entirely in-universe, therefore completely lacking in broadness. Not to mention the red-linked picture.
1139:
Article contains many statements which seem to beg more detailed inline citations. For ONE example, the
978:
No, but they are desirable, which is one half of why they are included in most checklists and templates.
3531:
3028:
179:
Eating disorders: counter-opinion is missing here, and was easy to find by following the source to PMID.
1829:, all statistics need to be cited. Without references, the "Records and statistics" section reads like
207:
This article seems to lack a NPOV and lacks details explaining the criticism of this particular topic.
2887:
1758:
The "Gameplay" section is redundant - it seems to me that "contestant" is repeated far too many times.
1670:
1362:
446:
142:
become vegans or not. To its credit, the article does achieve this in places, but overall it does not.
2184:
998:
920:
812:
781:
715:
688:
618:
599:
585:
256:
131:
2470:
300:
2841:
2676:
1069:
44:
3353:
Once the copyedit and ref formatting are done, does anyone else think it should try for an FAC?---
3093:
2998:
per nom. In-universe issues need to be addressed, and the article's breadth needs to be expanded.
2573:
1102:
The time of that listing seems to be slightly before the existance of a formal candidate process.
744:
30:
3582:
3448:
3376:
3333:
3271:
3258:
3241:
3162:
3115:
2960:
2478:
2458:
2446:
2416:
2350:
2301:
2129:
2045:
2040:
1731:
1644:
1601:
1509:
1478:
1433:
1295:
1237:
1148:
826:
795:
756:
664:
609:
557:
360:
3234:
it is in need of a good copy-edit, and the references are not consistently formatted correctly.
2838:
2787:
2569:
2021:
1470:
1425:
1286:
739:
735:
2457:
Seems to meet GA, and the nominator is willing to address any valid concerns editors may have.
2387:
A reference had the same name as the other - so a small formatting error (fixed it in a second)
1143:
section is entirely unreferenced. This will need to be brought up to standard to remain a GA.
1065:
3421:
3318:
3176:
3139:
2726:
2641:
2610:
2536:
1934:
1911:
1859:
1806:
1796:}}, which I would have thought was sufficient; if it is not, please advise how I can fix this.
1717:
Large sections are unreferenced and the article is not complete in coverage of the subject. --
1358:
911:
887:. Listing was procedurally flawed and inappropriate per the undeniable concerns raised below.
372:
348:
135:
3429:
3338:
2928:
2605:
2335:
2013:
1008:
930:
3526:
3411:
3023:
2987:
2289:
2229:
2142:
2093:
1682:
1388:
1219:
1171:
433:
295:
188:
65:
2815:
2601:
2589:
2565:
2561:
2225:
2058:
3551:
3129:
3097:
3005:
2932:
2698:
2504:
2434:
2420:
2407:
2392:
2368:
2165:
2155:
2111:
1920:
1899:
1840:
1773:
1622:
1583:
1564:
1398:
1341:
1322:
1192:
1103:
725:
703:
541:
521:
498:
484:
416:
398:
2597:
2593:
2577:
2552:
2321:
2030:
1830:
907:
748:
2849:
Thanks for correcting that, and sorry for using the wrong word. This is most definitely
2791:
2722:
2710:
2585:
2556:
1943:
Archived and restarted to regenerate more discussion. This was done by Drewcifer3000.
1354:
1273:. It wouldn't take much work to add a few citations to sources. See my comments below.
1064:
of the history of the music genre but there are some heavy referencing problems, maybe
243:
3525:. In addition to your points, I also want to mention that it is not a stable article.
2766:
2725:(or someone who agrees with him) does not present a reason why I should not by then.--
1910:
Most of those changes were done by me in response to suggestions made in this GAR... —
1805:
Hopefully with these improvements, the article will be able to retain its GA status. —
1593:
904:
656:
3570:
3511:
3436:
3393:
3364:
3328:
3236:
3150:
2773:
is an essay with no force as policy or guideline, and in any event does not focus on
2474:
2346:
2272:
2062:
1748:- Not beyond help. Mostly minor issues. I don't see too many problems with the lead,
1640:
1597:
1505:
1496:
1474:
1461:
1454:
1429:
1291:
1233:
1144:
979:
947:
822:
791:
777:
752:
680:
660:
407:
384:
334:
304:
279:
271:
219:
114:
3128:
Sorry, I must be blind. Forgive me, and do whatever the procedure is. I withdraw.
1877:
508:
2868:
2522:
2248:
2076:
1788:
In terms of the image, I am not sure how it does not have a fair-use rationale.
1216:
1168:
596:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Good articles/Unreferenced GA task force/Nominations
231:
208:
192:
127:
2331:
The unemployment rate is updated quarterly, IIRC, maybe more often then that...
2228:. If it doesn't meet the good article I would like a more indepth assessment.
534:- With recent improvements, the article now meets all GA criteria. Great work.
3545:
2999:
2945:
2498:
2105:
1834:
1760:
1558:
1469:
Wouldn't that be being disruptive to the text of the article simply to make a
1316:
1315:
per nom. This article needs better referecing throughout to meet GA criteria.
535:
3354:
333:
to cite them, and therefore that this is not a proper grounds for delisting.
317:
1718:
1546:
1045:
1025:
964:
873:
1993:
After re-review of the article I've found it to have the following issues:
1215:
I've done some work on the article today that I would like you to consider.
2154:
the article doesn't seem to of changed signifigantly since mid-september.
520:
With the latest changes, I see no reason for this article to not be a GA.
1592:
That's the whole point; if we can't be sure, then by definition isn't it
94:
687:. Hopefully someone can easily match the reference to the text. Cheers!
2268:
1113:
2224:
I believe that the article did not reasonably meet the criteria for a
598:. Wouldn't it be listed here if referencing were the problem? Cheers!
1387:, with regrets. As mentioned above, the article is under-referenced.
1816:
Great job improving this article. To reply to your questions, the {{
2588:) it is not the greatest GA. If I was using a scale where 95 is a
963:
Images aren't (or weren't last time I looked!) a criterion for GA.
3257:
per nomination. The footnotes/citations in particular are a mess.
1259:
1285:
Looking at the article in its current state, it appears that the
2640:- Keep with support to revert removed citations as nominator.--
2008:"Events and situations work themselves out" huh? Please expand.
3230:
it's very stubby in places with many one-sentence paragraphs,
2609:
the direction of this article and have exhausted my avenues.--
2377:
Placing on the GA list as a result of a clear 6-0 consensus.
1895:
Much of the prose seems to be changing in an unstable manner:
2445:
Initial fail didn't seem to be based on GA criteria at all.
2818:
or similar, not GAR. I intend to archive this discussion.
2576:
gave any feedback on their talk pages. We then posted at
2568:
issues. We agreed to accept outside opinions but neither
1876:- it can be a good article one it meets the GA criteria.
325:
You apparently missed the point I made about these stats
294:
This is not on dietetic grounds, but the author and chef
1535:
This article needs much more than fact tags, it needs a
1068:
should be informed about it so they can reference it. -
507:
Fixed these two points. We welcome more suggestions. --
153:
Some specific NPOV issues (these are not exhaustive)...
3498:
3494:
3490:
3486:
3474:
3470:
3462:
3217:
3213:
3209:
3205:
3193:
3189:
3181:
3084:
3080:
3076:
3072:
3060:
3056:
3048:
2919:
2915:
2911:
2907:
2895:
2891:
2883:
2581:
2216:
2212:
2208:
2204:
2192:
2188:
2180:
1985:
1981:
1977:
1973:
1961:
1957:
1949:
1896:
1167:
Being a main contributor myself I am inclined to agree.
1061:
163:
and the pro-vegan point of view is given the last word.
1460:
tags where you perceive a need for them. Thank you. --
903:
don't know how this was passed. The article is mostly
2075:
The lead alone is a good enough reason to delist. -
790:argue about why your review isn't worthwhile... --
594:Also, the reviewer did not add the article to the
2497:per above comments. This article meets criteria.
1692:Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? (US game show)
685:Talk:Reginald Fessenden#Good article reassessment
2927:The content of this article does not adhere to
2243:included on this in the article, and also that
2721:I will restore the citations this weekend if
2029:There are a bit too many External links. See
8:
3410:. At first glance it looks like a keeper.
25:
3508:Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo#Coffeemaker's Rant
910:, so it fails to meet criterion 2 of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Good article reassessment
2039:(Updated the list based on improvements
2521:its not perfect but its good for a GA.
2057:Article fails multiple criteria of the
1818:Template:Non-free television screenshot
1794:Template:Non-free television screenshot
1424:This article does not seem to meet the
1232:cease. However, its not there yet. --
659:statements which need verification. --
3284:: Lara's points are valid. However...
2012:The lead section is way to short. See
2763:challenged or likely to be challenged
2744:tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM
2659:tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM
2628:tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM
7:
3540:I agree that this article should be
1785:I would appreciate assistance with:
1060:a Good Article, as can be seen here
683:, I've copied your comments over to
2391:wait a month for another review...
1361:began to appear in the vernacular--
3290:Dead link to a main article: fixed
113:a movement such as this. Further,
24:
172:performance than a non-vegan one.
1056:- Actually I'm not sure this is
64:
29:
3432:, delisted prior to nomination.
2839:Knowledge (XXG) is not a forum.
2043:17:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC))
3358:11:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
3346:18:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
3312:Converting refs to Cite format
3113:is not a development section?
2146:16:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
2133:17:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
2121:01:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
1886:08:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
1810:08:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
1777:17:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
1764:01:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
1574:02:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
1550:05:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
1521:04:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
1500:04:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
1490:04:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
1465:04:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
1445:04:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
1332:02:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
1307:04:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
1179:17:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
1160:04:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
388:12:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
1:
3322:22:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
3262:04:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
3248:19:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
2097:20:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
2084:09:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
2068:04:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
2049:03:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1754:"Controversial questions" and
1735:20:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1722:15:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
455:
376:22:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
364:22:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
352:20:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
338:17:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
321:12:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
310:17:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
3589:18:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
3561:15:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
3536:04:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
3517:13:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
3455:18:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
3415:02:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
3403:19:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
3383:00:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
3275:17:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
3169:06:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
3133:04:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
3124:04:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
3101:04:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
3033:21:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
3015:19:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
2991:19:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
2979:17:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
2964:03:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
2952:15:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
2860:19:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
2845:19:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
2825:15:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
2799:19:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
2771:Knowledge (XXG):When to cite
2749:15:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
2714:04:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
2702:01:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
2690:03:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
2673:Knowledge (XXG):When to cite
2664:22:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
2633:22:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
2546:: article retains GA status.
2530:16:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
2514:02:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
2490:02:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
2462:11:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
2450:03:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
2438:21:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
2424:12:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
2380:This article was failed for
2362:06:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
2305:18:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
2293:17:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
2281:03:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
2256:02:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
2233:02:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
1712:19:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
1686:18:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
1419:19:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
1392:15:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
1280:19:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
1134:19:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
914:. This article is certainly
894:19:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
578:20:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
551:20:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
477:20:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
450:19:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
437:16:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
202:18:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
3040:Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow
2936:03:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
2411:15:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
2396:12:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
2159:18:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
1924:17:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
1915:16:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
1903:03:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
1863:18:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
1850:00:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
1674:17:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
1656:03:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
1626:16:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
1613:23:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
1587:03:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
1380:18:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
1366:10:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
1345:03:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
1249:17:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
1227:19:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
1208:13:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
1196:03:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
1107:21:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
1097:22:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
1049:09:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
1029:09:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
1015:23:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
988:22:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
968:22:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
956:22:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
937:21:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
867:17:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
838:17:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
816:05:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
807:04:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
785:03:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
768:02:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
729:14:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
719:03:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
707:03:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
692:02:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
676:01:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
622:02:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
613:01:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
603:00:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
589:00:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
525:16:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
512:15:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
502:14:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
488:14:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
420:14:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
411:12:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
402:22:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
316:almost several? Right. ;)--
283:23:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
260:23:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
247:22:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
235:22:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
223:22:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
212:14:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
3605:
2314:History of Mobile, Alabama
2245:History of Mobile, Alabama
3428:Result: Closed early per
457:St Thomas' Church, Oxford
70:Good article reassessment
2544:Inappropriate nomination
3309:Merging stub-paragraphs
3022:. Written in-universe.
2596:promotion, 75 is a new
2300:per eeverything above.
1141:Geographic distribution
301:easily overlooked topic
3293:Vote style: Consistent
3327:Updated fixed items.
3287:Copyright image: gone
1919:Oh, my mistake then.
1426:good article criteria
1287:good article criteria
327:not existing anywhere
3299:Year wikifying:fixed
3148:- Issues addressed.
2816:Requests for comment
383:original GA review.
329:such that there is
272:cross-wiki research
3306:Still to be done:
3109:- Forgive me, but
2769:). (By contrast,
2604:keep, and 65 is a
2417:Roadrunner Records
2022:citation templates
1912:Daniel Vandersluis
1860:Daniel Vandersluis
1807:Daniel Vandersluis
558:Reginald Fessenden
369:Comment on comment
3422:Iglesia ni Cristo
3177:Angolan Civil War
3140:Angolan Civil War
2747:
2662:
2631:
2537:Gilbert Perreault
2487:
2481:
2384:Having a red link
2359:
2353:
1935:Facing the Giants
1831:original research
1792:is tagged with {{
1653:
1647:
1610:
1604:
1518:
1512:
1487:
1481:
1442:
1436:
1359:The Divine Comedy
1304:
1298:
1246:
1240:
1157:
1151:
918:of GA quality. --
835:
829:
804:
798:
765:
759:
749:original research
673:
667:
91:
90:
83:
82:
52:
51:
45:current talk page
3596:
3585:
3579:
3573:
3558:
3514:
3502:
3478:
3451:
3445:
3439:
3379:
3373:
3367:
3343:
3342:
3336:
3331:
3246:
3244:
3239:
3221:
3197:
3165:
3159:
3153:
3122:
3120:
3088:
3064:
3012:
2949:
2923:
2899:
2795:
2758:inline citations
2729:
2680:
2644:
2613:
2527:
2511:
2485:
2479:
2357:
2351:
2277:
2253:
2220:
2196:
2118:
2081:
2065:
1989:
1965:
1883:
1881:
1847:
1651:
1645:
1608:
1602:
1571:
1544:
1538:
1516:
1510:
1485:
1479:
1459:
1453:
1440:
1434:
1329:
1302:
1296:
1244:
1238:
1223:
1207:
1175:
1155:
1149:
1093:
1090:
1087:
1085:
1083:
1082:
1080:
1011:
1006:
1001:
984:
952:
933:
928:
923:
833:
827:
802:
796:
763:
757:
671:
665:
548:
307:
296:Anthony Bourdain
189:Anabolic steroid
85:
84:
68:
54:
53:
47:
33:
26:
3604:
3603:
3599:
3598:
3597:
3595:
3594:
3593:
3583:
3577:
3571:
3552:
3512:
3481:
3460:
3449:
3443:
3437:
3425:
3377:
3371:
3365:
3340:
3339:
3334:
3329:
3242:
3237:
3235:
3200:
3174:
3163:
3157:
3151:
3143:
3116:
3114:
3067:
3046:
3043:
3006:
2947:
2902:
2881:
2872:
2793:
2678:
2540:
2523:
2505:
2372:
2369:Silent Civilian
2275:
2249:
2247:is expanded. -
2199:
2178:
2169:
2166:Mobile, Alabama
2112:
2077:
2063:
2059:Manual of Style
1968:
1947:
1938:
1879:
1878:
1841:
1695:
1565:
1542:
1536:
1457:
1451:
1402:
1399:Hebrew language
1323:
1263:
1221:
1205:
1173:
1117:
1091:
1088:
1078:
1076:
1074:
1072:
1071:
1009:
1004:
999:
982:
950:
931:
926:
921:
877:
813:Wassupwestcoast
782:Wassupwestcoast
716:Wassupwestcoast
699:Endorse Failure
689:Wassupwestcoast
631:Endorse failure
619:Wassupwestcoast
600:Wassupwestcoast
586:Wassupwestcoast
561:
542:
460:
305:
98:
43:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
3602:
3600:
3592:
3591:
3563:
3538:
3504:
3503:
3487:Archive at GAR
3479:
3424:
3419:
3418:
3417:
3405:
3390:Convert to GAN
3387:
3386:
3385:
3348:
3316:
3315:
3314:
3313:
3310:
3303:
3302:
3301:
3300:
3297:
3294:
3291:
3288:
3278:
3277:
3265:
3223:
3222:
3206:Archive at GAR
3198:
3142:
3137:
3136:
3135:
3126:
3090:
3089:
3073:Archive at GAR
3065:
3042:
3037:
3036:
3035:
3017:
2993:
2981:
2966:
2954:
2925:
2924:
2908:Archive at GAR
2900:
2879:
2871:
2866:
2865:
2864:
2863:
2862:
2723:User:RGTraynor
2704:
2586:User:RGTraynor
2557:User:RGTraynor
2548:
2547:
2539:
2534:
2533:
2532:
2516:
2492:
2464:
2452:
2440:
2428:
2427:
2426:
2399:
2398:
2388:
2385:
2371:
2366:
2365:
2364:
2342:
2341:
2340:
2339:
2332:
2328:
2325:
2307:
2295:
2283:
2261:Endorse delist
2258:
2222:
2221:
2205:Archive at GAR
2197:
2168:
2163:
2162:
2161:
2148:
2135:
2123:
2099:
2086:
2070:
2036:
2035:
2033:for more info.
2026:
2017:
2016:for more info.
2010:
2005:
2001:
1991:
1990:
1974:Archive at GAR
1966:
1937:
1932:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1928:
1927:
1926:
1888:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1867:
1866:
1865:
1855:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1797:
1779:
1766:
1743:
1737:
1715:
1714:
1694:
1689:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1616:
1615:
1540:morereferences
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1422:
1421:
1401:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1382:
1368:
1355:Roman de Troie
1347:
1334:
1283:
1282:
1262:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1210:
1209:
1198:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1137:
1136:
1116:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1018:
1017:
991:
990:
973:
972:
971:
970:
897:
896:
876:
871:
870:
869:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
772:
771:
770:
709:
696:
695:
694:
652:
651:
650:
647:
644:
641:
638:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
581:
580:
560:
555:
554:
553:
528:
527:
505:
504:
480:
479:
459:
454:
453:
452:
439:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
392:
391:
390:
380:
379:
378:
341:
340:
331:no possibility
323:
313:
312:
288:
287:
286:
285:
275:
265:
264:
263:
262:
249:
226:
225:
205:
204:
184:
183:
182:
181:
180:
177:
173:
164:
160:
157:
151:
147:
143:
139:
119:
97:
92:
89:
88:
81:
80:
73:
62:
50:
49:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3601:
3590:
3587:
3586:
3580:
3575:
3574:
3567:
3566:Strong Delist
3564:
3562:
3559:
3557:
3556:
3549:
3548:
3543:
3539:
3537:
3534:
3533:
3530:
3529:
3524:
3523:Go for delist
3521:
3520:
3519:
3518:
3515:
3509:
3500:
3496:
3492:
3488:
3484:
3480:
3476:
3472:
3468:
3464:
3459:
3458:
3457:
3456:
3453:
3452:
3446:
3441:
3440:
3433:
3431:
3423:
3420:
3416:
3413:
3409:
3406:
3404:
3401:
3400:
3395:
3391:
3388:
3384:
3381:
3380:
3374:
3369:
3368:
3361:
3360:
3359:
3356:
3352:
3349:
3347:
3344:
3337:
3332:
3326:
3325:
3324:
3323:
3320:
3311:
3308:
3307:
3305:
3304:
3298:
3296:Dashes: fixed
3295:
3292:
3289:
3286:
3285:
3283:
3280:
3279:
3276:
3273:
3269:
3266:
3264:
3263:
3260:
3256:
3252:
3251:
3250:
3249:
3245:
3240:
3233:
3229:
3219:
3215:
3211:
3207:
3203:
3199:
3195:
3191:
3187:
3183:
3179:
3178:
3173:
3172:
3171:
3170:
3167:
3166:
3160:
3155:
3154:
3147:
3141:
3138:
3134:
3131:
3127:
3125:
3121:
3119:
3118:Sephiroth BCR
3112:
3108:
3105:
3104:
3103:
3102:
3099:
3095:
3086:
3082:
3078:
3074:
3070:
3066:
3062:
3058:
3054:
3050:
3045:
3044:
3041:
3038:
3034:
3031:
3030:
3027:
3026:
3021:
3018:
3016:
3013:
3011:
3010:
3003:
3002:
2997:
2994:
2992:
2989:
2985:
2982:
2980:
2977:
2976:
2971:
2967:
2965:
2962:
2958:
2955:
2953:
2950:
2943:
2940:
2939:
2938:
2937:
2934:
2930:
2921:
2917:
2913:
2909:
2905:
2901:
2897:
2893:
2889:
2885:
2880:
2877:
2874:
2873:
2870:
2867:
2861:
2858:
2857:
2852:
2848:
2847:
2846:
2843:
2840:
2836:
2832:
2829:
2828:
2827:
2826:
2823:
2822:
2817:
2812:
2809:
2805:
2801:
2800:
2797:
2796:
2789:
2784:
2780:
2776:
2772:
2768:
2764:
2759:
2755:
2751:
2750:
2745:
2741:
2737:
2733:
2728:
2724:
2720:
2716:
2715:
2712:
2707:
2703:
2700:
2696:
2692:
2691:
2688:
2687:
2682:
2681:
2674:
2670:
2666:
2665:
2660:
2656:
2652:
2648:
2643:
2639:
2635:
2634:
2629:
2625:
2621:
2617:
2612:
2607:
2603:
2600:listing or a
2599:
2595:
2591:
2587:
2583:
2579:
2575:
2571:
2567:
2563:
2558:
2554:
2545:
2542:
2541:
2538:
2535:
2531:
2528:
2526:
2520:
2517:
2515:
2512:
2510:
2509:
2502:
2501:
2496:
2493:
2491:
2488:
2482:
2476:
2472:
2468:
2465:
2463:
2460:
2459:LuciferMorgan
2456:
2453:
2451:
2448:
2444:
2441:
2439:
2436:
2432:
2429:
2425:
2422:
2418:
2414:
2413:
2412:
2409:
2404:
2401:
2400:
2397:
2394:
2389:
2386:
2383:
2382:
2381:
2378:
2376:
2370:
2367:
2363:
2360:
2354:
2348:
2344:
2343:
2337:
2333:
2329:
2326:
2323:
2319:
2318:
2315:
2311:
2308:
2306:
2303:
2299:
2296:
2294:
2291:
2287:
2284:
2282:
2279:
2278:
2270:
2266:
2262:
2259:
2257:
2254:
2252:
2246:
2241:
2238:
2237:
2236:
2234:
2231:
2227:
2218:
2214:
2210:
2206:
2202:
2198:
2194:
2190:
2186:
2182:
2177:
2176:
2175:
2173:
2167:
2164:
2160:
2157:
2152:
2149:
2147:
2144:
2139:
2136:
2134:
2131:
2127:
2124:
2122:
2119:
2117:
2116:
2109:
2108:
2103:
2100:
2098:
2095:
2090:
2087:
2085:
2082:
2080:
2074:
2071:
2069:
2066:
2060:
2056:
2053:
2052:
2051:
2050:
2047:
2044:
2042:
2034:
2032:
2027:
2025:
2023:
2018:
2015:
2011:
2009:
2006:
2002:
2000:
1996:
1995:
1994:
1987:
1983:
1979:
1975:
1971:
1967:
1963:
1959:
1955:
1951:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1942:
1936:
1933:
1925:
1922:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1913:
1909:
1906:
1905:
1904:
1901:
1897:
1894:
1893:
1889:
1887:
1884:
1875:
1872:
1864:
1861:
1856:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1848:
1846:
1845:
1838:
1837:
1832:
1828:
1824:
1819:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1808:
1804:
1798:
1795:
1791:
1787:
1786:
1783:
1780:
1778:
1775:
1770:
1767:
1765:
1762:
1759:
1755:
1751:
1747:
1744:
1741:
1738:
1736:
1733:
1729:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1723:
1720:
1713:
1710:
1709:
1704:
1700:
1697:
1696:
1693:
1690:
1688:
1687:
1684:
1680:
1676:
1675:
1672:
1669:dissenters.--
1667:
1657:
1654:
1648:
1642:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1627:
1624:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1614:
1611:
1605:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1585:
1580:
1576:
1575:
1572:
1570:
1569:
1562:
1561:
1556:
1552:
1551:
1548:
1541:
1534:
1522:
1519:
1513:
1507:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1498:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1488:
1482:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1463:
1456:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1443:
1437:
1431:
1427:
1420:
1417:
1416:
1411:
1407:
1404:
1403:
1400:
1397:
1393:
1390:
1386:
1383:
1381:
1378:
1377:
1372:
1369:
1367:
1364:
1360:
1356:
1351:
1348:
1346:
1343:
1338:
1335:
1333:
1330:
1328:
1327:
1320:
1319:
1314:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1305:
1299:
1293:
1288:
1281:
1278:
1277:
1272:
1268:
1265:
1264:
1261:
1258:
1250:
1247:
1241:
1235:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1225:
1218:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1202:
1199:
1197:
1194:
1189:
1186:
1185:
1180:
1177:
1170:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1158:
1152:
1146:
1142:
1135:
1132:
1131:
1126:
1122:
1119:
1118:
1115:
1112:
1108:
1105:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1095:
1094:
1067:
1062:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1050:
1047:
1042:
1030:
1027:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1016:
1013:
1012:
1007:
1002:
995:
994:
993:
992:
989:
986:
985:
977:
976:
975:
974:
969:
966:
962:
961:Minor comment
959:
958:
957:
954:
953:
944:
941:
940:
939:
938:
935:
934:
929:
924:
917:
913:
909:
906:
902:
895:
892:
891:
886:
882:
879:
878:
875:
872:
868:
865:
864:
858:
854:
851:
850:
839:
836:
830:
824:
819:
818:
817:
814:
810:
809:
808:
805:
799:
793:
788:
787:
786:
783:
779:
776:
773:
769:
766:
760:
754:
750:
746:
741:
737:
732:
731:
730:
727:
722:
721:
720:
717:
713:
710:
708:
705:
700:
697:
693:
690:
686:
682:
679:
678:
677:
674:
668:
662:
658:
653:
648:
645:
642:
639:
636:
635:
632:
629:
623:
620:
616:
615:
614:
611:
606:
605:
604:
601:
597:
593:
592:
591:
590:
587:
579:
576:
575:
570:
566:
563:
562:
559:
556:
552:
549:
547:
546:
539:
538:
533:
530:
529:
526:
523:
519:
516:
515:
514:
513:
510:
503:
500:
495:
492:
491:
490:
489:
486:
478:
475:
474:
469:
465:
462:
461:
458:
451:
448:
443:
440:
438:
435:
430:
427:
421:
418:
414:
413:
412:
409:
405:
404:
403:
400:
396:
393:
389:
386:
381:
377:
374:
370:
367:
366:
365:
362:
358:
355:
354:
353:
350:
346:
343:
342:
339:
336:
332:
328:
324:
322:
319:
315:
314:
311:
308:
302:
297:
293:
290:
289:
284:
281:
276:
273:
269:
268:
267:
266:
261:
258:
253:
250:
248:
245:
241:
238:
237:
236:
233:
228:
227:
224:
221:
216:
215:
214:
213:
210:
203:
200:
199:
194:
190:
185:
178:
174:
170:
165:
161:
158:
155:
154:
152:
148:
144:
140:
137:
133:
129:
125:
120:
116:
111:
110:
107:
103:
100:
99:
96:
93:
87:
86:
78:
74:
71:
67:
63:
60:
56:
55:
46:
41:
40:
35:
32:
28:
27:
19:
3581:
3569:
3565:
3554:
3553:
3546:
3541:
3532:
3527:
3522:
3505:
3499:Article talk
3482:
3447:
3435:
3427:
3426:
3407:
3399:Geometry guy
3397:
3389:
3375:
3363:
3350:
3319:Perspicacite
3317:
3281:
3267:
3254:
3253:
3231:
3226:
3224:
3218:Article talk
3201:
3175:
3161:
3149:
3146:Result: Keep
3145:
3144:
3117:
3106:
3091:
3085:Article talk
3068:
3029:
3024:
3019:
3008:
3007:
3000:
2995:
2983:
2975:Geometry guy
2973:
2969:
2956:
2941:
2926:
2920:Article talk
2903:
2875:
2856:Geometry guy
2854:
2850:
2834:
2830:
2821:Geometry guy
2819:
2810:
2807:
2803:
2802:
2792:
2782:
2778:
2774:
2762:
2757:
2753:
2752:
2727:TonyTheTiger
2718:
2717:
2705:
2694:
2693:
2685:
2677:
2668:
2667:
2642:TonyTheTiger
2637:
2636:
2611:TonyTheTiger
2592:, 90 is new
2549:
2543:
2524:
2518:
2507:
2506:
2499:
2494:
2466:
2454:
2442:
2430:
2402:
2379:
2374:
2373:
2309:
2297:
2285:
2273:
2264:
2260:
2250:
2239:
2223:
2217:Article talk
2200:
2171:
2170:
2150:
2137:
2125:
2114:
2113:
2106:
2101:
2088:
2078:
2072:
2054:
2038:
2037:
2028:
2019:
2007:
1997:
1992:
1986:Article talk
1969:
1940:
1939:
1907:
1891:
1890:
1873:
1843:
1842:
1835:
1821:
1781:
1768:
1757:
1753:
1749:
1745:
1742:As nominator
1739:
1727:
1716:
1708:Geometry guy
1706:
1702:
1698:
1678:
1677:
1665:
1664:
1594:unverifiable
1578:
1577:
1567:
1566:
1559:
1554:
1553:
1532:
1531:
1423:
1415:Geometry guy
1413:
1409:
1405:
1384:
1376:Geometry guy
1374:
1370:
1349:
1336:
1325:
1324:
1317:
1312:
1284:
1276:Geometry guy
1274:
1270:
1266:
1200:
1187:
1140:
1138:
1130:Geometry guy
1128:
1124:
1120:
1070:
1057:
1053:
1052:
1040:
1039:
997:
980:
960:
948:
942:
919:
915:
905:unreferenced
900:
898:
890:Geometry guy
888:
884:
880:
863:Geometry guy
861:
856:
853:Endorse fail
852:
774:
740:make a point
711:
698:
630:
582:
574:Geometry guy
572:
569:Endorse fail
568:
564:
544:
543:
536:
531:
517:
506:
493:
481:
473:Geometry guy
471:
467:
463:
441:
428:
394:
373:PrinceGloria
368:
356:
349:PrinceGloria
344:
330:
326:
291:
251:
239:
206:
198:Geometry guy
196:
168:
136:PrinceGloria
123:
105:
101:
69:
37:
3528:OhanaUnited
3483:(De)listing
3412:Majoreditor
3202:(De)listing
3069:(De)listing
3025:OhanaUnited
2988:Majoreditor
2904:(De)listing
2869:Black Marsh
2781:vandalized
2290:Majoreditor
2230:Altairisfar
2201:(De)listing
2143:Nehrams2020
2094:Nehrams2020
1970:(De)listing
1746:Weak Delist
1683:Majoreditor
1671:Peter cohen
1450:Please add
1389:Majoreditor
1363:Peter cohen
912:GA criteria
447:Peter cohen
434:Majoreditor
193:Freemasonry
36:This is an
3355:SidiLemine
3130:hbdragon88
3098:hbdragon88
2933:hbdragon88
2794:RGTraynor
2699:Homestarmy
2495:List as GA
2471:WP:CONTEXT
2467:List as GA
2455:List as GA
2443:List as GA
2435:Homestarmy
2431:List as GA
2421:M3tal H3ad
2408:Homestarmy
2393:M3tal H3ad
2226:quick-fail
2156:Homestarmy
1921:Homestarmy
1900:Homestarmy
1774:Balloonman
1623:Homestarmy
1584:Homestarmy
1342:Homestarmy
1193:Homestarmy
1104:Homestarmy
726:Homestarmy
704:Homestarmy
657:unverified
522:Homestarmy
499:Homestarmy
485:Homestarmy
417:Homestarmy
399:Homestarmy
318:SidiLemine
257:Skinwalker
132:Skinwalker
72:(archive)
3272:Drewcifer
3268:Week Keep
3259:Drewcifer
3094:WP:CVG/GA
2986:per nom.
2961:Drewcifer
2711:Jeff Dahl
2574:WP:HOCKEY
2555:. Then,
2447:Drewcifer
2302:Drewcifer
2151:Weak Keep
2130:Drewcifer
2102:Weak Keep
2046:Drewcifer
2041:Drewcifer
1790:The image
1769:Weak Keep
1732:Drewcifer
1066:WPP:MUSIC
874:Reggaeton
361:Drewcifer
244:Malkinann
124:primarily
3542:delisted
3394:LaraLove
2878:- Delist
2842:Davnel03
2788:WP:POINT
2754:Comment:
2570:WP:WPBIO
2486:contribs
2475:Jayron32
2358:contribs
2347:Jayron32
2064:VanTucky
1652:contribs
1641:Jayron32
1609:contribs
1598:Jayron32
1517:contribs
1506:Jayron32
1497:Ling.Nut
1486:contribs
1475:Jayron32
1471:WP:POINT
1462:Ling.Nut
1441:contribs
1430:Jayron32
1303:contribs
1292:Jayron32
1245:contribs
1234:Jayron32
1217:·Maunus·
1169:·Maunus·
1156:contribs
1145:Jayron32
834:contribs
823:Jayron32
803:contribs
792:Jayron32
778:Jayron32
764:contribs
753:Jayron32
745:weaselly
736:WP:WIAGA
681:Jayron32
672:contribs
661:Jayron32
306:VanTucky
115:VanTucky
95:Veganism
3471:History
3430:WP:SNOW
3408:Comment
3351:Comment
3282:Comment
3190:History
3107:Comment
3057:History
2929:WP:FICT
2892:History
2833:, this
2811:process
2806:, this
2719:Comment
2606:WP:GA/R
2525:Tarret
2519:List GA
2419:staff.
2403:Comment
2336:WP:LEAD
2269:The War
2240:Comment
2189:History
2138:Comment
2126:Comment
2089:Comment
2014:WP:Lead
1958:History
1908:Comment
1782:Comment
1579:Comment
1371:Comment
1114:Nahuatl
1054:Comment
1041:De-list
712:Comment
509:SECisek
494:Comment
395:Comment
357:Comment
252:Comment
240:Comment
77:Page 30
59:Page 32
39:archive
3255:Delist
3020:Delist
2996:Delist
2984:Delist
2970:Delist
2957:Delist
2942:Delist
2876:Result
2775:inline
2602:WP:FAR
2590:WP:TFA
2566:WP:OWN
2562:WP:RFA
2375:Result
2310:Delist
2298:Delist
2286:Delist
2265:at all
2251:Shudde
2172:Result
2079:Shudde
2073:Delist
2055:Delist
1941:Result
1892:Delist
1882:facets
1874:delist
1740:Delist
1728:Delist
1699:Result
1679:Delist
1666:Delist
1555:Delist
1533:Delist
1410:Delist
1406:Result
1385:Delist
1350:Delist
1337:Delist
1313:Delist
1271:Delist
1267:Result
1201:Delist
1188:Delist
1125:Delist
1121:Result
1010:eybaná
943:Delist
932:eybaná
901:really
885:Delist
881:Result
565:Result
464:Result
429:Delist
408:Kellen
385:Kellen
345:Delist
335:Kellen
292:Delist
280:Kellen
232:Tarret
220:Kellen
209:Tarret
128:Tarret
106:delist
102:Result
3495:T:GA#
3491:WP:GA
3475:Watch
3392:with
3243:♥LOVE
3214:T:GA#
3210:WP:GA
3194:Watch
3081:T:GA#
3077:WP:GA
3061:Watch
2916:T:GA#
2912:WP:GA
2896:Watch
2835:forum
2831:Sorry
2808:forum
2804:Sorry
2679:T Rex
2598:WP:GA
2594:WP:FA
2578:WP:PR
2553:WP:GA
2322:WP:EL
2276:Tucky
2213:T:GA#
2209:WP:GA
2193:Watch
2031:WP:EL
1982:T:GA#
1978:WP:GA
1962:Watch
1800:show.
1761:Raime
1473:? --
1260:Latin
983:Tucky
951:Tucky
857:which
191:with
176:diet.
150:word.
16:<
3584:Love
3572:Lara
3506:See
3467:Talk
3463:Edit
3450:Love
3438:Lara
3378:Love
3366:Lara
3335:Love
3330:Lara
3238:LARA
3186:Talk
3182:Edit
3164:Love
3152:Lara
3111:this
3053:Talk
3049:Edit
2948:ASEM
2888:Talk
2884:Edit
2767:WP:V
2706:Keep
2695:Keep
2686:talk
2669:Keep
2638:Keep
2582:this
2572:nor
2480:talk
2352:talk
2185:Talk
2181:Edit
1954:Talk
1950:Edit
1827:2(b)
1823:show
1752:The
1719:Czac
1703:Keep
1646:talk
1603:talk
1596:? --
1547:Wrad
1511:talk
1480:talk
1455:fact
1435:talk
1297:talk
1239:talk
1206:ASEM
1150:talk
1058:even
1046:4u1e
1026:4u1e
965:4u1e
828:talk
797:talk
775:Pace
758:talk
666:talk
532:Keep
518:Keep
468:Keep
442:Keep
130:and
79:) →
3547:Rai
3001:Rai
2851:not
2837:??
2790:.
2740:bio
2655:bio
2624:bio
2564:on
2500:Rai
2274:Van
2107:Rai
1836:Rai
1560:Rai
1357:or
1318:Rai
1204:--M
981:Van
949:Van
916:not
537:Rai
169:can
57:← (
3555:me
3501:.
3497:,
3493:,
3489:,
3485::
3473:·
3469:·
3465:·
3220:.
3216:,
3212:,
3208:,
3204::
3192:·
3188:·
3184:·
3087:.
3083:,
3079:,
3075:,
3071::
3059:·
3055:·
3051:·
3009:me
2972:.
2922:.
2918:,
2914:,
2910:,
2906::
2894:·
2890:·
2886:·
2783:my
2779:he
2746:)
2683:|
2675:.
2661:)
2630:)
2508:me
2235:.
2219:.
2215:,
2211:,
2207:,
2203::
2191:·
2187:·
2183:·
2141:--
2115:me
1988:.
1984:,
1980:,
1976:,
1972::
1960:·
1956:·
1952:·
1898:.
1844:me
1833:.
1701::
1639:--
1568:me
1543:}}
1537:{{
1458:}}
1452:{{
1408::
1326:me
1269::
1123::
1092:Q.
1089:H.
1077:bb
1075:ri
1073:Ca
1000:Ag
922:Ag
908:OR
899:I
883::
610:CP
567::
545:me
466::
61:)
48:.
3578:❤
3550:-
3513:w
3477:)
3461:(
3444:❤
3372:❤
3341:♥
3196:)
3180:(
3158:❤
3063:)
3047:(
3004:-
2946:M
2898:)
2882:(
2742:/
2738:/
2736:c
2734:/
2732:t
2730:(
2657:/
2653:/
2651:c
2649:/
2647:t
2645:(
2626:/
2622:/
2620:c
2618:/
2616:t
2614:(
2503:-
2483:|
2477:|
2355:|
2349:|
2324:.
2195:)
2179:(
2110:-
1964:)
1948:(
1880:S
1839:-
1649:|
1643:|
1606:|
1600:|
1563:-
1514:|
1508:|
1483:|
1477:|
1438:|
1432:|
1321:-
1300:|
1294:|
1242:|
1236:|
1224:·
1222:ƛ
1220:·
1176:·
1174:ƛ
1172:·
1153:|
1147:|
1086:~
1084:n
1081:a
1079:e
1005:ü
927:ü
831:|
825:|
800:|
794:|
761:|
755:|
669:|
663:|
540:-
167:"
75:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.