Talk:Paul O'Grady/GA2

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

Disclosure: I have been a fairly significant contributor to this article in the past, and thus have a keen interest in its progress.

This article falls down very squarely on the second of the six good article criteria, that it is "Verifiable with no original research". As it stands the article contains various un-referenced claims, many of which are pointed out prominently using "citation needed" tags. It is, therefore, not of good article quality. I appreciate that this article underwent a recent GAN only last month, at which it passed. However, I cannot escape the conclusion that this article probably shouldn't have been nominated for GAN at the time, and that it certainly should not have been passed. Fundamentally, it is not of GA quality, and unless the necessary changes are soon made then I shall have to delist it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ten days on, there have been no changes made. I'm going to delist this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)