Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wolverine (comics)/1

Wolverine (comics)

 * • Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: Procedural close: article was never reviewed. This is a case of confusion; the following is  a suspected summary of events: after the nomination, nominator added a section (ca. 5 minutes later) with a title clearly subject to misinterpretation.  Passing editor saw “on hold” comment and updated WP:GAN page accordingly (phrasing of “apparently” seems to confirm confusion caused by aforementioned section title). Another editor later failed the nomination, presumably due to "expired" hold.  Nominating editor for GAN and GAR has acknowledged “the article wasn't reviewed” and “voted” to “nominate at GAN”.  Closing GAR nomination accordingly; article may, of course, by renominated at WP:GAN at nominator's leisure.  Suggest article history be treated as if never reviewed (i.e. not a DGA).  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 03:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC).

The article wasn't reviewed, and is not broad in its coverage. David Pro (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I don't see evidence that the article ever passed GA. Majoreditor (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Relist . I think that this article meet the GA criteria in some aspects. David Pro (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Er...we can't re-list an article which never passed.
 * David, I don't understand your request. The article appears to have been reviewed and failed, although the reviewer's comments are sparce and confusing. Are you asking for a re-evaluation? Your second comment, "is not broad in its coverage", leads me to believe that you agree with the reviewer's decision to fail the article.
 * Please re-state what you want GAR to do about the article and why. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Question. Somebody thinks that this article must be listed as an GA? David Pro (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nominate at GAN: If the original GA listing was suspect and the article was never on WP:GA, should it have a 'DGA' tag? As regards quality, I wouldn't have had a problem with upholding the original (albeit flawed) promotion. However, as we've moved past that, GAN would seem to be the sensible place for this. David Pro (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)