Talk:Headquarters of the United Nations/GA1

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

This is a premature nomination. This article is not yet deserving of good article status. It lacks much about the history of complex, including cost of construction, beginning and completion dates, etc. In addition, no mention is made of the major organizations that use the building: Security Council, ECOSOC, Secretariat, etc. Article lacks in image use. The images previously used were not very informative, when there is a sizable collection of images at Commons. In addition, sources are not formatted into citations, and some are even just links inserted directly into the prose of the article (a couple of these ended up being dead links). In addition some of the article is excessively detailed while much of it is not detailed enough. I haven't actually completed reading the full article yet, but it's really unnecessary. This one just isn't yet up to snuff. I just added an infobox, which cleaned the place up. I will also be adding more images into the article as well (might have to search a bit on Flickr as well). I will be working on this article now in the future, and hopefully can help out a bit. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 03:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Where does this review stand?
Shouldn't this nomination be closed out? This is showing up as the oldest unreviewed article. So I was going to volunteer to review it. However, apparently the article has been reviewed, but this fact has not been properly documented. Please properly close out the review or document that the review is ongoing as appropriate. Granted, I have not checked the history to see the improvements made since the nomination, but in its current state, I would have placed the nomination on hold, not failed it. While I agree with most of the findings, some of these are over and above the Good article criteria.Dave (talk) 05:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Closing GA Review
Though I know normally the first editor to begin a review should be the one to pass/fail/hold, since this nomination has been "in review" since March 2009 without action, I'm going to mark this FAIL and suggest that it be renominated by an interested contributor at a future time. Vicenarian (talk) 04:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)