Talk:Grand Western Canal/GA1

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


 * The original GA for this article passed in 2008, and just yesterday I removed one section of inaccurate and unsourced content that was present at the point of the article passing GA (diff at time of GA pass). With that in mind it seems pertinent to offer this up to GAR to ensure that it (still) meets appropriate standards. MIDI (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think a lot of the citations were been taken in good faith during the 2008 GAN (specifically the WP:OFFLINE sources). That's not necessarily a problem, and I'm not necessarily challenging them, but lots of the article's information hinges on single footnotes at the end of paragraphs or after a few sentences, and it's not necessarily clear what part of the text the citations refers to. We can make use of the  parameter of cite book to help verify things I own the Hadfield (1967) book so I can flesh out those footnotes appropriately. MIDI (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * . Is this ready to be closed? Aircorn (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to review it; I suspect your message means I've done something wrong to get it listed for reassessment. Anything you can suggest? Thanks, MIDI (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This was opened as an individual reassessment, which is a relatively quick way to delist articles that don't meet the criteria. They are meant to be closed by the person opening them after a chance has been given to fix the issues. Another option is to go through a community reassessment (which is similar, but closed by another editor judged on consensus). You can also tag an article with GA request on the talk page and eventually someone will come along and decide if it actually needs reassessing. Haven't looked at the article yet so don't have an opinion atm on whether it meets the criteiria. If you want I could do that or we could push it to the community? Aircorn (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I think you meant to use a different process. Either way this has remained open for long enough. I have read through the article and as far as I can tell it meets the GA criteria well enough, so I am closing this as Keep. Aircorn (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)