Talk:New York Yankees/GA2
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Before I do anything, can I ask why you re-nominated this when they issues in the first review haven't been addressed at all? I see a random reference scattered in there once in a while, and that's it. Instead of having just a general reference, you need to cite specific pages for your information. This article could and should have 150 refs, easily. Unless you think that you can accomplish the reference alone (not counting prose and whatever else), I think this is another fail. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 09:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Honestly I wanted a second opinion from the first review, because I was surprised with the quick fail. I know it needs more sources but I expected a full review of it. Not sure if I can get it to 150 sources any time soon, maybe 100. But that'll still take a lot of work. --Sportskido8 (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, for your second opinion, I'll say I agree with the first opinion. Do you think you can work hard within the next 7 days to get it done? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 00:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- There's a chance I could do it, but it'll be tough to do all alone. --Sportskido8 (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- In which case, that means what? Should I fail this again? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 00:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I guess so. --Sportskido8 (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- In which case, that means what? Should I fail this again? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 00:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- There's a chance I could do it, but it'll be tough to do all alone. --Sportskido8 (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, for your second opinion, I'll say I agree with the first opinion. Do you think you can work hard within the next 7 days to get it done? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 00:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
In which case, this nomination is failed. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 00:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)