Talk:Du battant des lames au sommet des montagnes/GA1

GA Reassessment
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Du battant des lames au sommet des montagnes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

In order to uphold the quality of Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of September 12, 2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.


 * This is the English wikipedia, titles should be in English. Please see WP:MOSH.


 * This article should be merged with Réunion.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Why would either the above be a reason for delisting this article? Merging with Reunion makes no sense—this article is clearly a separate topic. There is nothing that surprises me any more in terms of the arbitrary rationales used to suggest the inadequacy of articles by "projects", but still, I have to ask. Whiskeydog (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you ask at WP:GAR. It may be that you are right and I am wrong. I would point out, however, that I have not labelled this article as "inadequate"; I have simply stated my belief that it does not meet the good article criteria, and tried to explain why. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How can we have the title in English when the article is about a French expression? Thierry Caro (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * French expressions are for the French wikipedia. This is the English wikipedia. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand your point. Thierry Caro (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I really couldn't care less. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then, others will for you. Thierry Caro (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Others may give their opinion, but that will not change mine. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not saying the article should keep its status whatever it takes. I am saying that the review is not acceptable for the moment. The reasons you give seem not sufficient or not connected to what should be discussed here. Thierry Caro (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We clearly disagree. I wish you luck nevertheless with your GA reassessment. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I have closed the Good article reassessment as endorsed (diff). Best, PeterSymonds (talk)  19:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC) I Just see this, I'm not against the idea of reassessing article but the way it has been done for this article is absolutely ridiculous. I wonder if the person who raised arguments such as "should be merged with Reunion" actually read this article. And the rest of the discussion is just well... --Kimdime69 (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)