Talk:Beelzebub (Sand Land)

Beelzebub (Sand Land) was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 2, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
June 11, 2007	Good article reassessment	Delisted
June 23, 2007	Good article reassessment	Delisted
December 5, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
May 28, 2008	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

GAC review

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

The problem is the source. Out of 25 references, only 2 are not from the manga itself. I want to see more varieties of references, if they can be found. OhanaUnited 15:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like there's no other sources aside from the manga itself. I'm satified with the additional information added regarding about the manga. This article passes GA review. OhanaUnited 05:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Delisted

This article has been removed from the GA list due to having a in-universe perspective. If you disagree with this review fee free to take this article to WP:GA/R. Tarret 00:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The review has concluded with a consensus to uphold the delisting of this article due to in-universe prose. The text of the review can be found here. Once this issue is addressed, please feel free to renominate at WP:GAC. -Malkinann 01:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Hello, I will be reviewing this article. So far it passes the quick fail criteria, so a full review is forthcoming. I did notice that it was at one time delisted for in-universe writing, and so far from a quick skim through it looks like it has greatly improved. Any questions, you may contact me on my talk page. Regards. FamicomJL 21:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

on hold

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

Article looks great, I am 100% sure that it is a good article on wikipedia, just needs to have fair use rationales for the images. Please send me a message on my talkpage when you add the rationales. Thanks! FamicomJL 23:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The things I asked for have been fixed. Congratulations!!! Good job to all who worked on it! FamicomJL (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA delisting

This article has been delisted due to failing the GA criteria. In addition to now being a redirect, the previous version of the article completely failed the GA requirements for referencing and verifiability with no reliable sources used at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]