Talk:Golden Domes/GA2

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

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 03:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It will take me a while to pour through the talk page and other pages associated with this article and obviously there is the glaring issue of the notice at the top of the page that has to be dealt with. I welcome the contributions of previous reviewers or other editors interested in the article, although I reserve the right to make the final decision (it can be nominated at WP:GAR if anyone disagrees with this). AIR corn (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking this on. When I posted the GA request the article had been stable. However since then it has been radically reduced. It may take some time before it becomes stable again.   Will Beback    talk    04:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Because of the great friction in the last few days the article qualifies for a quick fail, in my opinion. I did not notice that it was up at GAN, and I did not seek to scuttle its chance for GA, but the timing is most unfortunate. Binksternet (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, unfortunately there have been too many major good faith changes recently for this article to be considered stable. From my cursory read through (at its condition as of this date) it appears close to meeting the other criteria. Personally I would treat this like a church article, while relevant to say what occurs within the building it should focus mostly on the building itself. In my opinion the fringe theory notice does not apply to the article in its present state. If it stays stable for a couple of weeks I would renominate; depending on time availability (it has been erratic presently) I will pick it up again. Oh and I would also add buildings (or some equivalent) to the first sentence. AIR corn (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)