Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Warcraft II/2
Warcraft II edit
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: no action There was clear consensus that the best course would be for renomination at WP:GAN as the article had previously failed at GAN in July 2010 and had never been listed. It also appears that comments at the previous GAN and the peer review have not been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I request a community reassessment, because:
- At 20:14, 3 August 2010 User:Geometry guy moved Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Warcraft II/2 wrote, "Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Warcraft II/1 (Unnecessary new reassessment: move to first one and merge histories) (revert)".
- Then at 22:24, 3 August 2010 Geometry guy deleted the individual reassessment with "Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Warcraft II/2" (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Reassessment moved, clear page". The deleted individual reassessment said, "Comments made here may help editors and reviewers approach that challenge with realism", without give me a change to ask what "challenge with realism" mean. --Philcha (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Warcraft II/2" was not an individual reassessment, but a community one, and it did not contain that comment. I also fail to see how community GAR can be of any help here. The article needs to be renominated at GAN. Geometry guy 23:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- User:Reach Out to the Truth insistants on everting the article's title. Could GAR reviewers please comments on this situation. --Philcha (talk)
- Close GAR. This is housekeeping. This is housekeeping that is 1 year old. It is so unimportant I don't even know why i'm commenting. Szzuk (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Delisted As I said elsewhere[1], the place to get these re-listed is the nomination process. AIRcorn (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.