Talk:Princess Theatre (Edmonton)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk · contribs) 04:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Criteria
 Good Article Status - Review Criteria   		A good article is&mdash;  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).



Review
Before conducting an extensive review, and after ensuring you are viewing an unvandalized version, check the article and its edit history for the following basic problems which are sometimes found in GA nominations.

✅# The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Verifiability. ✅# The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. ✅# There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, POV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, citation needed, clarifyme, or similar tags. (See also QF-tags.) ✅# The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars. ✅# The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

 <li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>.</li>

<li>.</li>

<li>:</li>

</ol>

Discussion
This review appears to have been moribund since the day it was started, now over five weeks ago. There is no sign of action here, on the article's talk page, or with the article itself. Is there any progress being made, or should it be returned to GAN pool to get another reviewer? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The reviewer appears to have gotten involved in a hotly contested arbitration shortly after taking this article onboard. All of the other GAN he took on seem to have suffered the same fate. I wouldn't be opposed to returning the article to the pool, providing amadscientist has no objections. I've been hesitant to contact him because I was worried about biasing or influencing the review before it was finished. I will try to make contact on his talk page. --Rawlangs (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It can go back into the pool.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nomination has been placed back in the pool; new review will be under GA2. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)