Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Charles Bertram/1

Charles Bertram[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No consensus for listing. While the quick failing GA was inappropriate, a community GAR isn't the best way to overturn that ruling since it requires a group of interested editors to begin with. My quick review notes that the prose needs to be improved on. Lots of the wording suggests Original Research in places, and these "double" quotation marks are just not advisable. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some issues with the article, but the one cited by the reviewer who came through and gave a speedy close is not remotely in good faith. Requesting reopening of the review and less disinterested reviewer with an interest in actually improving the page to the point where it is a GA, rather than simply closing it out to fulfill some DYK-style quota. — $Llywelyn II$ 14:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]