Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Me & the Rhythm/1
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Closing as delisted per DENY. I believe the references and coverage issues have been resolved, so a GA nomination in the future would probably be successful. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Article was nominated by a now confirmed and indeffed sock account of MaranoFan. While not vandalism, suggest and request re-review per WP:DENY as the nominator should neither have edited nor nominated the article. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delist even if the nominator wasn't a sock, this article was passed prematurely when it has questionable-at-best citations (namely "Vancitybuzz" and "Inquistr", goes into too much detail on parent album, says nothing about commercial performance (however minor it might have been), and neglects to mention any of its live performances except for a concert on Today. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delist as well. Vancitybuzz seemed legit to me. Inquistr is always questinoble but I have taken some of those references to it now. Yes I completly overlooked the commericla performance. It does mention live perfoamcnes, read the lead. It wasn't worth having a section with one sentence. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- I have now added a Commercial performance section and replace the Vancitybuzz reference. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep. I might be an IP, but as a user who uses this exclusively as an anon in public (and as a user while at home), I see nothing wrong with this article. I think MarioSoulTruthFan's work fixed the complaints above. I know what I'm talking about, I'm not naming any names, but I may have promoted all the Evanescence studio albums to GA myself. You may choose to believe me or not, my IP changes constantly while I'm here. In any case, there is now a minor commercial performance section, the unreliable source complaints have been addressed, and honestly in my opinion the album context is necessary backstory to how the song came about in the first place. Live performances are short in references anyway. I firmly believe this article can be kept. 104.39.107.135 (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter who you are or what you've done in the past, right now you have decided unilaterally that the article should not be delisted (as is the obvious consensus above) and you are doing it as a sock. I've left a message on your talk page that I hope you take seriously. -- ψλ ● ✉ 02:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Decided to strike until I can verify. But please, take my points into consideration, it looks like all the complaints were addressed, and under no circumstance did my comments guarantee keeping, only encouraging. My verdict wasn't necessarily final, just my own two cents. 104.39.27.33 (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter who you are or what you've done in the past, right now you have decided unilaterally that the article should not be delisted (as is the obvious consensus above) and you are doing it as a sock. I've left a message on your talk page that I hope you take seriously. -- ψλ ● ✉ 02:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- As the original one operating the IP on a separate computer in a separate location for reasons which I discussed (will link upon request), I echo my Keep stance for the same reasons. It appears to me the article's been fixed, unless there are other complaints anyone has that haven't been mentioned yet. Consensus can change, especially if some issue has been fixed. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 01:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.