Talk:Alicia Sacramone/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

The lead is too long per WP:LEAD but otherwise there are only minor changes needed, which I've done anyway. Peanut4 (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help and for reviewing the article! I've made a few changes to the lead and tried to cut it down to two paragraphs. DanielEng (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. Everything looks fine. My only concern is that while this page is stable now, I'm not sure it will be for the next week or two because of the Olympics. How do you feel about me keeping this on hold until after she competes in the Olympics? Peanut4 (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent idea. The page will have to be updated during the week for the Olympics, so it makes a lot of sense. I don't mind it being on hold at all until she's finished competing. Thank you! DanielEng (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There was quite the sea of vandalism the other night after Sacramone's poor performances in the team all-around. It's up to the initial reviewer, of course, but there's quite a bit of precedent to outright fail an article because of lack of stability. Nosleep (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hence, why I'm waiting for the Olympics to finish. If I don't think it's still stable, I will fail it. But I'm giving a good article chance to stabilise. There is no upper limit for how long to hold an article. Peanut4 (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed the "neutrality dispute" tag on the 2008 Olympics section, and obviously I already had concerns regarding the stability before. So unfortunately like the Nastia Liukin article, I'm unfortunately going to have to fail it per the stability criteria of GAN. Everything else was fine before, and the only thing I haven't read through is the new "2008 Olympics" sub-section. My suggestion would be to wait for the dispute to be resolved, and give it say a two-week breathing space for the article to become clearly stable again, and resubmit at GAN. Peanut4 (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is really not cool, and I'm confused as to why you're failing these instead of holding on until the end of the Olympics, as you said you would. Please re-read the criteria for stability: good faith page improvements and IP vandalism do not count. As with Nastia Liukin, this fail is not correct, and I am submitting it for reassessment. DanielEng (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)