Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Alicia Sacramone/1

Alicia Sacramone edit

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

Result: Article listed. Clear consensus shown by all comments being in favor of listing. The issue was the exact same one as in the Nastia Liukin GAR. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was failed for GA by the same editor who failed the Nastia Liukin article, for the same reason: it was claimed that it was not stable. The editor had originally agreed to wait until the end of the Olympics to assess the article and then went back on his or her word, with no warning. The rationale here was a NPOV tag which was added by IP vandals, and was taken away by registered editors as soon as it was found. The editor admitted s/he hadn't even read through the most recent copyedits before failing the GA.

This article should not have failed GA. I would like for it to be reassessed. I would also appreciate it if perhaps someone could ask the assessing editor about what s/he is doing--it seems as if s/he is constantly misreading the GA criteria and failing good articles as a result. DanielEng (talk) 01:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List. For the same reasons I stated in the Nastia Liukin reassessment. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List per the reasons on the Nastia Liukin reassessment. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List per above. no content dispute.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]