Talk:John Rice Irwin/GA2

GA Review

Article did not reflect changes from last review, and does not meed the standards of a Good Article. TLSuda (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Reviewer: TLSuda (talk · contribs) 19:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Greetings! I will be taking on this review. After my read-through, I should have a review posted in the morning. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Thanks for reviewing this, I just realized that there are 3 dead links on the page and will fix these ASAP. CrowzRSA 20:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Initial Review Frankly, I'm appalled when I look at this article. You attempted to achieve Good Article status in March 2011 GA Review but never responded to the review. Looking at the article now, and back at that review, the same issues exist. In addition to that 5 of the internet sources are dead links which cannot be verified and at least 2 sources do not meet WP:RS. There are many typos and grammatical errors that need to be resolved. I've done my read through and I have notes, but as it stands right now, this review should be quickfailed. However, if you will address all of the issues of your last attempt at this review, including notes and responses listed here, I will continue this review. I'm very disappointed that you've brought the same lackluster, poor quality article back for review without addressing those issues. I expect to see these issues resolved in 7 days, or this review will be failed, again. TLSuda (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC) To be honest with you, I thought the last review was BS so I re-nominated it quite sometime later. Upon looking at the review once more, I realize a few of the points/suggestions were actually valid and ought to be addressed; however, my interests have shifted. I can honestly say that I no longer care too much for this article. I am, however, proud to have have brought it from a "stub" article to a "C" or even "B" class article. Nonetheless, if you personally are not willing to fix the issues raised in the previous review and do some further cleaning up (and believe me, I understand if you do not), I suggest you go ahead and fail this article. Sincerely, CrowzRSA 23:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC). In that case, this article fails to meet the standard of good articles and fails the GA-review. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)