User talk:Lincher/GA

Lincher, the idea is that when it fails to meet WIAGA, it fails - just like it would be with any other GA reviewed/delisted at random. The "double check" was envisioned for keeping articles on the GA list, so that we make sure nothing slips through the cracks. You have provided quite a list of reasons why Branson is not up to snuff, so do delist it, and remove from the main page. That way, we can keep track of articles that are to be reviewed, and we end up with a list of articles that have been confirmed by two users to be OK. Cheers, Bravada, talk - 02:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC) PS. I guess we simultaneously need to closely monitor all upcoming GA promotions. Could you update the list until today and let all other members of the WikiProject GA to pay close attention to new noms until we establish a good process to deal with that after the discussion that is currently taking place? Thanks!

It's me again - I guess you might have missed my comment before. I would like to reiterate that IMHO fail in this process is just like any other fail, if there is a reason to delist a GA then we should do so, there is no reason to debate it further. Failing is also controversial, leaving comments as to who failed what would lead to unpleasant situations like "How could you fail this or that? Then I will fail this or that in return!". Third, removing failed articles we help shorten the list and see progress (not to say failing is the only way to achieve progress, it's just that quite a sizeable amount of articles will probably be failed). Bravada, talk - 18:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

On hold when inline citations missing?
I guess a "hold" status might be sensible for articles whose only failure is the lack of inline citations (which are a new criteria). In that case I would give editors a week to fix everything (it would be good to provide a list of statements that need them, or use the "citation needed" template to indicate them) Bravada, talk - 00:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)