Talk:Beelzebub (Sand Land)

GAC review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

The problem is the source. Out of 25 references, only 2 are not from the manga itself. I want to see more varieties of references, if they can be found. OhanaUnited  15:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems like there's no other sources aside from the manga itself. I'm satified with the additional information added regarding about the manga. This article passes GA review.  OhanaUnited   05:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Delisted
This article has been removed from the GA list due to having a in-universe perspective. If you disagree with this review fee free to take this article to WP:GA/R. Tarret 00:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The review has concluded with a consensus to uphold the delisting of this article due to in-universe prose. The text of the review can be found here.  Once this issue is addressed, please feel free to renominate at WP:GAC. -Malkinann 01:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Review
Hello, I will be reviewing this article. So far it passes the quick fail criteria, so a full review is forthcoming. I did notice that it was at one time delisted for in-universe writing, and so far from a quick skim through it looks like it has greatly improved. Any questions, you may contact me on my talk page. Regards. FamicomJL 21:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

on hold

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Article looks great, I am 100% sure that it is a good article on wikipedia, just needs to have fair use rationales for the images. Please send me a message on my talkpage when you add the rationales. Thanks! FamicomJL 23:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The things I asked for have been fixed. Congratulations!!! Good job to all who worked on it! FamicomJL (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

GA delisting
This article has been delisted due to failing the GA criteria. In addition to now being a redirect, the previous version of the article completely failed the GA requirements for referencing and verifiability with no reliable sources used at all. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)