Talk:Lena Meyer-Landrut/GA2

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

Hi there! I'm bringing this up to GAR because I feel it does not meet the GA criteria anymore. I saw that the article was passed to GA in 2012, and there were a lot of changes in the following 5 years. First, the lead — apart from containing refs that are overfluous — is too short and does not summarize key points of the article. In the article's body, we have various unformatted refs and weird paragraphs. I believe sentences such as "The song debuted on #42 in german charts" are definitively not GA-worthy. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Cartoon network freak, it might help this reassessment if you notified the relevant editors, including primary contributors to the article and the original GA reviewer, plus the WikiProjects—these are the people who are most likely to address the issues you've raised so far and bring the article back into compliance with the GA criteria. Please don't close this until they've had a chance to find out that a reassessment is underway. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally I see the article as making the treshold for GA inclusion. Still very comprehensive and sources are good.BabbaQ (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest closing this reassessment. I have given it a ressassment and found that there is no reason to demote this article. BabbaQ (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * BabbaQ, the lead is clearly too short per MOS:LEAD, and reading through it just now I found some clear issues with punctuation and prose, though nothing that couldn't be fixed by a copyedit, so I have requested one from the Guild of Copy Editors. I see no reason why there cannot be a favorable outcome before the end of March, but the reassessment should not be closed before the necessary work is done. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: A copyedit by the Guild of Copy Editors has been completed, and as part of it the article's lead was expanded and the source citation format has been improved in many instances. Under the circumstances, I would say that the issues raised by Cartoon network freak in nominating the article here at GAR have likely been addressed (the copy editor certainly believes it to be at GA quality insofar as prose is concerned), which is the desired outcome of a GAR: that an article be brought back to GA level, and be retained as a GA. Cartoon network freak, if you wish it, I'll be happy to help you close this GAR. However, as you opened the reassessment, we need to hear from you soon if you think any issues remain. This reassessment has been open for five months, and if you think there's more work to be done, you need to be specific as to what is needed. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * per above. AIRcorn (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realized that it had been nearly three weeks. Let's give this through April 1, and if it hasn't been closed by then, I'll take it on myself to do so. Thanks, Aircorn, for going through all these. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Cartoon Network is active so left a message at their talk page. Will see what happens. AIRcorn (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW the article seems in pretty decent shape as it is. AIRcorn (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi there! I'm really sorry that I didn't respond to your pings, but I kept forgetting to come here (I guess your comment on my talk page just ultimately reminded me about that ;). Regarding the article, I do believe it is in a much better shape now and this reassessment can be closed. As I do not know how to do that, could one of you do that for me? Would that be possible? Best of regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)