Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Gliese 581 c/1
Gliese 581 c[edit]
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch •
- Result: Delist. Geometry guy 18:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Very soon after this article was granted Good Article status, the article has undergone significant editing, including various tags such as {{contradict}}, passages of text in the article criticising the references, an RFC on the talk page. I thus believe the article no longer fulfils criterion 5 (stability), and possibly not 2 (accuracy and verifiability) or 4 (NPOV). As an editor who has been involved with the article I feel it would be inappropriate for me to carry out an individual reassessment, hence my request for community reassessment. Icalanise (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'll support delisting on the mere basis that the current revision is significantly different from the reviewed revision, as well as 2 and 4. Protonk (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support delisting as per Icalanise. --Cyclopia (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. The Effective Temperatures section is in a wretched state. It's a poorly written confusing ramble. Majoreditor (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delist. The star's article was just listed, and is much easier t understand. This needs o be rewritten, and copyeditied. also the leads one big paragraph is difficult to read, and if it summarises the article, then all those citations should be moved into the main body.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobmod (talk • contribs) 09:39, 21 October 2008.
- Delist. Although this article is not bad, and not particularly unstable, it really does need some work on it. I agree with Majoreditor's comment on the Effective temperatures section. Also the lead does not summarize the article very well. It would be nice to have a more expert reviewer's opinion (e.g. Ruslik). Geometry guy 20:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delist per my above comment. Majoreditor (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)