Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Lundy/1

Lundy

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Lundy/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • GAN review not found
 * Result: Kept. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This 2007 promotion contains significant uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b). Most of the information should be easy to source, however. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, are you able to source the remaining non-cited information? No worries if not. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The first missing citation's easy, but I was reticent putting it in thinking it may come across as promotional. I've added one now, do you think it's Ok? I'll run through the others and report back to you here. Rupples (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, AirshipJungleman29, thanks for the politely written nudge and good you did so because tbh I got a bit frustrated not being able to find sources for the remaining citations needed a few days ago and had given up. This evening though, using different search terms has, I hope you agree, proved productive. The only one remaining is Beacon Hill Cemetery — I've added two citations to the first paragraph which support the specific Lundy content but the last bit kind of draws parallels and I can't locate a specific source, so haven't removed the citation needed tag but will leave to your discretion as to whether it is still required. Rupples (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , your efforts have been a great success. I think I can close this reassessment as a keep, notwithstanding the remaining two citation needed tags—if you can at some point find sources for them, that would be ideal, but I think it's good enough for now. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)