Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mona Sax/1
Mona Sax[edit]
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- Result: Withdrawn by nominator. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Old GA that is mostly relying on listicles like "top 10 hottest woman" or "hottest babe" and passing mentions. Some of the referencing was also poorly made. This is not even close to GA criteria now with this modern standard. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The problem here is with the character's notability, not the quality of the article's writing. I see nothing wrong with the article itself, it reads perfectly fine, even if the reception is largely trivial passing mentions that do not demonstrate she is an important character at all. Basically; do a merge discussion instead, GA criteria do not include notability, this is the wrong forum for that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- Would AfD be fine instead of merge discussion? That doesn't attract attention that much. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 00:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- If you're worried about that, posting about it in the WP:VG talk page tends to get attention even without an AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oh well, I guess gonna withdraw this. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 02:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- If you're worried about that, posting about it in the WP:VG talk page tends to get attention even without an AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- Would AfD be fine instead of merge discussion? That doesn't attract attention that much. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 00:45, 20 May 2023 (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.