Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Omar Khadr/1

Omar Khadr[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Please review. Adamdaley (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Delisted based on clear consensus among reviewers. Ian Rose (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through the entire article and adding {{citations needed}} to sections where I feel a citation/source/reference is needed. Other than that, I do not think that this article is deservingly of a "GA-class" assessment while it may meet a "B-class" assessment. Adamdaley (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: There appears to be a number of unreferenced statements in the article. As such, I don't think that this article (in its current state) completely meets the "verifiable with no original research" criterion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: as a BLP this article has a concerningly large amount of uncited material. In its current state it doesn't meet the GA criteria. Anotherclown (talk) 09:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: I concur with AustralianRupert and Anotherclown. As well as the unreferenced material, I have concerns that the article is overly detailed and lacking conciseness (1a and 3b of the GA criteria). Zawed (talk) 09:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: With citations missing in many places in the article, it doesn't even meet B-class standards. Cuprum17 (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]