Talk:Pacaya
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Pacaya has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment. | |||
|
||||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Volcanoes, a project to systematically present information on volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information), or join by visiting the project page. |
|
 GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. | |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance to WikiProject Volcanoes on the project's importance scale. | |
| If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments. | ||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) | |
| GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance to WikiProject Mountains on the project's importance scale. | |
| If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments. | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Central America, which collaborates on articles related to Central America. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. |
| GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] Good Article review needed
This article received its Good Article rating on 23 October 2005 from an editor who hearkened back to a kinder, gentler era when it was not outside of norms to just simply plonk down a Good Article tag for no other reason than WP:ILIKEIT. Alas, the standards for retaining this pretty green trinket have tightened over time; in the present regime, someone unassociated with writing this article (a reviewer) should examine the article with respect to the good article criteria and, on the various standards cited, expresses up, down, or neutral sentiments, plus an aggregate sentiment, upon which retaining the pretty little trinket relies.
By posting this remark here, I'm not suggesting that the article has gone bad or presently fails the criteria, but I am noting the absence of a review that is a hallmark of the present process, and, in the fullness of time, a review should be performed on this article. With the absence of a review, this article is a delisting candidate. Note that, for an editor to delist this article, the due-diligence of a good article review is required. Otherwise, how might a delisting editor justify his or her delisting, or offer cogent reasons why the Good Article mark should remain? In either case, anything short of a fair review is unfair to editors who contribute to this article regularly and in good faith. Drop any questions about this on my talk page. Take care — Gosgood 22:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- I feel it is B class at best at present. It is missing most inline citations and probably other references have not be listed. RedWolf 00:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
