Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Weapons of Resident Evil 4/1

Weapons of Resident Evil 4

 * • Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: No action. All parties seem to agree that the quick fail was in error. Suggest renomination. Geometry guy 20:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The article was quick failed under the claim that it contains a host of clean up tags and templates; however, the article contains no such tags or templates (there is a merge discussion linked to at top, which goes to a discussion in which some of the participants had even talked about making the article a good article candidate instead of merging). Even if he meant the merge template, then I do not uderstand why he did not say: "There's a merge template"? He, however, asserts that it includes but is not limited to "cleanup", "wikify", "NPOV," "unreferenced," "fact," "clarify," and "huh" tags and templates, which is simply not true. There are no such tags or templates on the article and many if not all of these tags would not even make sense on it anyway, especially say an "unreferenced" tag/template (which again is not actually on the article) as the article contains a whole host of inline citations. As for the merge tag, please note that it was placed by an editor well over a month ago (back in February) and this editor has not edited since around the week of adding that tag. In the discussion that we had about it, the consensus was clearly to keep the article rather than merge (Magioladitis, TTN, and ZeroGiga were for merge; Kung Fu Man, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, Masem, ShadowJester07, The Prince, and Ursasapien were for keep; Judgesurreal777 was somewhat neutral): 6 for keep, 3 for merge, and 1 neutral. Thus, consensus has been to keep the article and not merge since 28 March 2008 when anyone last posted in that discussion. That discussion in effect can probably be archived (obviously, I do not think I should be the one to do so). Thus, I believe the article was unjustifiably and incorrectly delisted as a "quick fail" for the above indicated reasons. Thank you for your time and consideration! Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the relevant tag. My reading of that discussion is that there's no consensus for a merge.--chaser - t 15:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the mistake. I saw that the article had a tag, and I quickfailed it without reading the discussion. Also, I used the template, it gives the examples about NPOV and unreferenced. I see no problem with renominating it if the merge discussion is closed. Epass (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Bad review, renominate so the article can get a proper review. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A few issues I can see: It may also be a good idea to sort the weapons according to their classifications in their descriptions. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 18:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no actual description of what the Chicago Typewriter is.
 * Killer7 is incorrectly linked, and should also be described as a magnum.
 * Riot gun should flat out explain it is a shotgun.
 * The Striker should be mentioned as being an automatic shotgun.
 * The names "Dr. Salvator" and "Chainsaw Man" are both used; I would think only one should be used
 * Done:, , and . Thanks for the suggestions!  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)