Talk:The Bill/GA3

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I think the article fails criteria #2 of the GAC as there are quite a few broken links and unverified facts in the article. I tagged these a while ago so they should be pretty easy to find.

In addition I do not believe that the article is written sufficiently well to meet criteria #1 to warrant being listed as a good article. --Deadly∀ssassin 17:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will read over the article a little later when I have more time to try and fix the broken links.--5 albert square (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broken links fixed.--5 albert square (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the citations referenced now, I will do the rest over the weekend if nobody else does them--5 albert square (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, some more of the citations referenced, going to ask User:JuneGloom07 if she can help with the outstanding ones.--5 albert square (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still looking into this. I'm having trouble sourcing the bit about the Ford Sierra, I'm referring to a Geoff Tibballs book I have on the history of Sun Hill. Going to look at this over the next day or so in the hope I can reference it in this book. If not I'll come back and have a re-think.--5 albert square (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK everyone, not forgotten about this, just been a bit busy and been unable to source some references particularly for them using a Ford Sierra. I've actually ordered a book from Amazon in the hope that this will help out. At the end of the day if it doesn't source the Sierra then it may be able to help with other parts of the article. Please bear with me whilst I try and source these, once I'm certain whether or not I can get a source I can then see about the writing of the article.--5 albert square (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been courteous of the initiator to notify the editors who brought the article to GA status, and to have raised these issues on the talk page instead of going for the jugular. Our names are even listed on the talk page for that specific purpose, so I'm disappointed that such basic due diligence wasn't done. However, now I'm aware of it, I will look into the issues over the coming days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying, which many other editers have said, but if your trying to promote this to GA; get rid of the tags by adding sources as well as dont leave blank url's at the bottom of the reflist. — M.Mario (T/C) 18:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean Mario. We're not trying to promote it to GA, it is already a GA, has been for the last couple of years. It's being re-assessed. As I've said previously I'm trying to find sources for it but it's proving hard. HJ have you received my emails regarding this?--5 albert square (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has been under reassessment for a long time now. Are we any closer to getting a result? AIRcorn (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review appears to have been abandoned. Closing as kept. AIRcorn (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]