Talk:Grimace Shake/GA2

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Grimace Shake/GA2|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Grimace Shake/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Begocc (talk · contribs) 11:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

{{Archive top

|status =

|result = Review voided and nomination placed back in the queue — Bilorv (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

}}

WP:QUICKFAIL, Still a start class, issues from previous GA nomination slightly addressed. maybe could get reassessed as C, but a long shot from a good article. Most effort is still on the reception and controversy, but the lead is better and more balanced, it still needs expansion (as well as the rest of the page).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Begocc (talk • contribs) 11:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping|Begocc}} May I close this nomination for you? TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 18:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

::{{Ping|TrademarkedTWOrantula}} see User talk:Begocc#Grimace Shake quickfail. {{Ping|Begocc|Arconning}} would you be happy for this review to be voided and for the article to placed back in the Good Article Nominations queue (with its old timestamp) for somebody else to review? — Bilorv (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

:::Did not see that. Whoops. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 22:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

:::Yea, just void this review. it was pretty bad anyway :/ Begocci (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}