Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

Jump to content

Talk:Nonviolent Communication/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Cirt in topic GA Review

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 04:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC) I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Good article nomination on hold

[edit]

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 10, 2012, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Passes here. Well written, good stylistic sentence structure and language usage throughout.
2. Factually accurate?: Not passing here at this point in time. There are five (5) citation needed tags that need to be addressed promptly please.
3. Broad in coverage?: Passes here. Thorough overview of the topic with good sub-levels of discussion.
4. Neutral point of view?: Passes here. Written in neutral tone.
5. Article stability? Passes here. Per my prior stability review on talk page.
6. Images?: Passes here. Per my prior image review on talk page.


Please address issues above soon.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 02:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Response from GA nominator

posted to talk page of GA Reviewer

Thanks for doing the review. I have removed all the Citations Needed tagged text from the article. If it comes back, I will make sure it has proper sources. One of the major bones of contention in the past with this article has been reliability of sources, and so we spent a lot of time going over our sources in great detail. It is a good reminder that text has begun to creep back in that is less well sourced, and we need to stay on top of that.

Thanks!Michaplot (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Looks much better, thanks, passes now. — Cirt (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply