169:, it needs to be updated. But it also needs to be refactored for simpler language in some parts and more exact language in other parts. As I read through the article more and more, I would say it'd be better to revoke GA status for now, in part due to out-of-date information and also in part due to non-neutral language (regardless of whether or not it's agreeable, the phrasing needs to sound more "simple fact"-ish.) This appears to be present throughout the article.
149:
The article has not been reassessed since 2006 and there've been a lotta changes since then. Two big problems: the intro doesn't summarize the article, and some editors keep reinserting repetitive, non-neutral text.
98:
129:
did not address GAR concerns nor did they address the problems indicated by the two cleanup banners placed at the top of the article. All existing comments on this thread are in support of
36:
did not address GAR concerns nor did they address the problems indicated by the two cleanup banners placed at the top of the article. All existing comments on this thread are in support of
94:
79:
71:
87:
178:
159:
143:
17:
64:
50:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
188:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
125:: This article was listed for GA reassessment almost 11 weeks ago, and the last comment was made over six weeks ago.
32:
This article was listed for GA reassessment almost 11 weeks ago, and the last comment was made over six weeks ago.
133:. Additionally, other comments made on this article's talk page are indicative of a consensus to remove GA status.
40:. Additionally, other comments made on this article's talk page are indicative of a consensus to remove GA status.
174:
155:
139:
201:
195:
127:
The changes that have been made to this article since nomination for reassessment
34:
The changes that have been made to this article since nomination for reassessment
170:
151:
135:
126:
114:
106:
75:
33:
8:
7:
46:The following discussion is closed.
18:Knowledge:Good article reassessment
24:
57:Gun violence in the United States
184:The discussion above is closed.
115:Watch article reassessment page
1:
179:16:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
160:15:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
218:
144:21:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
186:Please do not modify it.
48:Please do not modify it.
118:• GAN review not found
165:I agree. To say the
49:
47:
209:
134:
117:
111:
102:
83:
217:
216:
212:
211:
210:
208:
207:
206:
192:
191:
190:
189:
121:
113:
92:
69:
63:
60:
52:
43:
42:
41:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
215:
213:
205:
204:
194:
193:
183:
182:
181:
147:
146:
119:
59:
54:
53:
44:
31:
30:
27:
26:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
214:
203:
200:
199:
197:
187:
180:
176:
172:
168:
164:
163:
162:
161:
157:
153:
145:
141:
137:
132:
128:
124:
120:
116:
110:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
90:
86:
81:
77:
73:
68:
67:
62:
61:
58:
55:
51:
39:
35:
19:
185:
166:
148:
130:
122:
107:
103:
89:Article talk
88:
84:
65:
56:
45:
37:
76:visual edit
131:delisting
38:delisting
196:Category
28:DELISTED
99:history
80:history
66:Article
202:GAR/59
171:Jacedc
152:Felsic
136:Jacedc
123:Result
167:least
108:Watch
16:<
175:talk
156:talk
140:talk
95:edit
72:edit
198::
177:)
158:)
142:)
112:•
97:|
78:|
74:|
173:(
154:(
138:(
104:·
101:)
93:(
85:·
82:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.