Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Small Mercies/1

Small Mercies edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Kept.--Retrohead (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article hasn't been updated since it was promoted back in 2007, and honestly, the review wasn't as detailed as it is today. Most of the links are dead, and with all previously said, nominating the article for delisting.--Retrohead (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure what you mean by "with all previously said". Does this phrase relate to some commentary elsewhere or does it merely relate to your previous sentence? Just curious.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is in the group with four others, all nominated for the same reasons. Check the list at WP:GAR.--Retrohead (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've improved the article: added more material, more sources, adjusted its tone (more NPoV), updated content and checked dead links for archive sources where possible.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the recent upgrades, extensive referencing, and broad coverage of the subject, this article should remain GA. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article appears to satisfactorily address the GA criteria - in the absence of the nominator providing any comments as to specifically why the article should be delisted- it should remain a GA. Dan arndt (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]