Talk:SMS Marie/GA2

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

The article was pulled from the mainpage for being erroneous. The error still appears in the article's lead. The GA review was perfunctory, ""I will be instant passing this, as it meets all criteria". Andrew D. (talk) 08:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The error has since been corrected. Is there any reason to continue with this review? Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd agree, this is taking WP:POINT to a new level. However, if Davidson performed the review himself, it seems fair enough, as long as he sticks ardently to the GA criteria and not some made up stuff that I usually use when reviewing GAs (usually because I'm always looking a bit beyond GA when I review for GA).  So, what's it to be, sign that cheque or withdraw this point?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The main difficulty in reviewing this article is that it uses offline sources but I've made some checks and am mentally preparing a list of issues. More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, cool. It needs to be done in a "timely fashion", so don't keep this hook baited unnecessarily.  If you can't "mentally obtain your sources" or "mentally construct your review", please pass it and move on to something different.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * (Pinging all interested parties.) Andrew, is this review going anywhere? If not, I'm going to close it. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  10:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's been over a month, nuke it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and issue trout. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have closed it. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  14:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)