Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Greenlandic language/1

Greenlandic language

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Greenlandic_language/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Delisted, as issues with verifiability have been identified and no efforts to fix them have been made. Thanks for bringing this to GAR. Hopefully someone will take the time to improve the article and get it up to standard. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Greenlandic language is a good article with several noticeable problems: Overall, this good article fails the GA criteria of verifiability. Therefore, I suggest to delist this article. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 07:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The example is required to demonstrate that Greenlandic treats (i.e. case-marks) the argument ("subject") of an intransitive verb like the object of a transitive verb, but distinctly from the agent ("subject") of a transitive verb.
 * The "derivation" section is 100% unsourced.
 * The "indicative and interrogative moods" and "orthography" sections contain unsourced materials.


 * Why the hell don't you contact the main author and nominator of the GA before delisting? These queries are ridiculosu since all those things are sourced in the article. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * User:Buidhe - this article was proposed for delisting as a drive-by a now banned account who did not contact any of the editors who had originally worked on the article before proposing it. I am the main author and didn't know of the delist proposal, before it was delisted.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Maunus, before I delisted this article I checked it, and I did find content that did not have a clear source where I could verify it. Checking back, I see that is still the case. For example in the section "Indicative and interrogative moods", I find a paragraph starting "The table below shows". In the paragraph and the table it's referring to, there are no inline citations nor references where I could verify the information. Even if there were some error in delisting, this reassessment was closed almost three years ago so I would recommend resubmitting to GAN if you think it meets the criteria. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)