User talk:Weebiloobil

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 18:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Weebiloobil. Thank you for your review of the Chrissie Watts article. I have addressed all the issues you have raised, and hopefully have rectified the problems. On the matter of the images, I have consulted with another editor who has strengthened the justification for the profile picture; however your critique may still be valid. See our comments on the review page: we have suggested that a possible counter arguement is that the other two images on the page do not provide of sufficiently identifiable view of "Chrissie", with her being rather blurred in the green dress image, and bending down in the image where she kills Den. However, it is a priority that the profile picture be kept, so if you still feel that there is a problem, the removal of the third image from the article would strengthen the need for the profile picture (as there would only be 2 in the article, and one rather blurry). Please see the comments on the review page. I hope all other matters are fixed. I am willing to delete the third image from the article in order to pass the GA review. Thanks again for your time. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 17:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a regular contributer to the Alpha Phi Omega wikipedia page (*way* too involved to review it), but I will try to answer any questions you might have. I do have a COI, I'm an Alpha Phi Omega alumnus and I'm on the National History and Archives Committee.Naraht (talk) 05:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

:No recent progress has been made on this article. You might want to close the review soon. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 16:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi there {{BASEPAGENAME}}! You may be wondering, what have I done to sound the alarm this time? Nothing. I'm messaging you in regards to the adopt-a-user program, which currently has a backlog of users wishing to be adopted. This doesn't make much sense, as we have a considerable list of users offer adoption, so there shouldn't be any backlog. I've begun to eliminate this backlog myself through a matching program, but I need your help to make it work. Of course, adoptees and adopters don't have to go through there, but I believe it helps eliminate the backlog because someone is actively matching pairs.

On the list of adopters, I have modified the middle column to say "Interests." It's easier working with other users that have similar interests, so if it's not too much to ask, could you add your interests in the middle column? For example, if I was interested in hurricanes, computers, business, and ... reptiles? I would place those in the middle column. Counter-vandalism and the like can also be included (maintenance should be used as the general term). The more interests, the better, since adoptees can learn more about you and choose the one they feel most comfortable working with. The information about when you're most active and other stuff can go into the "Notes" section to the right.

Finally, I've gone around and asked adoptees (and will in the future) to fill in a short survey so adopters can take the initiative and contact users they feel comfortable working with. We all know that most adoptees just place the adopt me template on their user page and leave it - so it's up to us to approach them and offer adoption. So, please take a look at the survey, adopt those that fit your interests, and maybe watchlist it so you can see the interests of adoptees and adopt one that fits your interests in the future.

Once again, thank you for participating in the adopt-a-user program! If you wish to respond to this post, please message me on my talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 05:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC).

Hello, I believe I have sorted out the issues. Feel free to let me know if you notice anymore. Thanks. -- Matthew RD 14:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for reviewing this article. Having gone through each section one to the next and tweaked the prose where appropriate, I believe that the points highlighted in your review have been addressed (e.g. the definite article preceding "Hood" is now in lower case throughout). Thanks once again! SuperMarioMan 03:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

:And again for passing the article. SuperMarioMan 15:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw you were on the list of mentors for GAs and I was wondering if you would like to help me review Green Day. I have never done this before and I don't fully know what to do. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 00:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry its been a month. Can you please look at this again and give your opinion. The article is very close but I feel there are some problems. cheers--Guerillero | My Talk 23:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Please if you have time and you know anything to it (I have seen that you have made edits in the article area which owns relations on it) , please look on the article Audio theatre, somebody placed a erase discussion on it. after we have had a merge discussion. It would be interesting what you would say to the merge and the delete discussion. And possibly it could help to contact other people that they should help also. )-: Merry Xmas --Soenke Rahn (talk) 04:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

Can you help me please?

I have asked several people to help me and they have been really helpful but I need real editorial guidance to make the article on Mdvanii better. I am slowly learning the process to add all the appropriate citations, but it very hard for me for the moment as it's all very technical, therefore adding them is very slow for the moment. I have written it with an associate in NY who iniitated the article (I am in Switzerland)...the subject is a controversial artwork/doll which has a few stalkers so we already had a major vandalism which was corrected.....several of the one time (new to wiki) people who edited and left comments have usurped the artists names (BillyBoy* & Lala) and have made comments about the authors of the article (myself and my asociate in NY) as being "too close to the subject" which is absolutely not true. Infact, I think these comments are biased as they be detractors of the artists work, for which there are a few. I think it is biased to say we are biased.

I want to make the article completely neutral. The history is very rich however and we have all the citations, documentation and tv appearance set to back up each and every statement within the article ...all of it is just needing to be inserted correctly.

If you can help me, or guide me to someone will to really work on it with us, I'd be really grateful. The subject is fascinating and really has alot to be said for it there is so much information, but it is our express goal to make it be a completely wikipedian encyclopedic article (neutral) and not seem in any way a "puff piece" as it was called at the beginning (I have since really cleaned it up considerably)....

I hope to hear from you, directly on mytalk page if possible...

The article is MDVANII....

My kind regards, Alec Jiri Alec jiri (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "{{mono|1=reviewer}}" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Weebiloobil - I'm an experienced Wiki user but newcomer to Wikipedia, and so far have only done grammar editing here. I saw your name on the Wikipedia: Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters page. I'd like to be adopted! I'm interested in improving an article, Sociology_and_complexity_science, but would like to learn more about standards and "encyclopedic style" before I contact the original poster Bcastel3 and begin work on the page. For the moment, I can only work on it occasionally, maybe once or twice a week. Please let me know on my talk page if you'd be interested in adopting me. In any case, thank you for your work on Wikipedia and for being willing to adopt newbies! - Regards, Mary Lee

Meclee (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Weebiloobil&action=edit

Weebiloobil - Thanks for adopting me! I actually understand most of your comments! I've already read some of the background material you recommended, and thank you for the additional info links! I've also found another page related to the Sociology_and_complexity_science that also needs some editing and may be a candidate for merger (I failed to "watch" it and need to find it again). I know there is a process on that as well. Right now, my time is limited, but I will get back to you soon with more questions! Thanks again! Meclee (talk) 06:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Weebiloobil - The first step I'd like to take is to propose a merge of Sociology and complexity science into the article Social complexity. Both are the same topic. It appears the rules allow this without making a formal proposal, but I did find a process for tagging and using 'merger' templates, which I think I've followed. I've also notified the Sociology portal talk page and placed a note on Bcastel3's talk page. I've started the outline and definition of basic concepts in a personal sandbox. When you have a moment, I'd appreciate it if you would look at what's there to see if I'm proceeding in the right vein. Thanks again. Meclee (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Weebiloobil - I've been BOLD! The article Social_complexity was a stub so meager as to be more confusing than helpful, so I've now replaced it with an early version for later further merger with Sociology_and_complexity_science. I suppose bots will be around to inspect the change (as well as some of the users interested in sociology). Meclee (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Weebiloobil! My first award! I am beaming! *:-))) Meclee (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Social_complexity is now a 'final draft' for consideration before merging with Sociology and complexity science. The article may be 'overlinked', and I think I've broken some other rules, so general feedback is welcome.Meclee (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Weebiloobil! My apologies as well, end-of-semester is always busy! Thank you for the cookie

! I'll do some 'wrap-up' on the

Social_complexity article taking your suggestions and some others, then I will do the redirect. After that, I'm going to work on the Social_network article. All beginning next week. Hope your holidays are merry & bright!Meclee (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hope your New Year is going well! Meclee (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Hope you had great holidays and your new year is going well. I've been being bold, doing major overhauls and creating articles. Now I've gotten myself into working on some Sociology project backlog tasks, such as trying to create some subcategories to diffuse the main cat. Have read what I can find on categorization, but most seems to assume you already know what you're doing. Does one create a category or subcategory page the same way one creates an article, but named with 'category'? Does one add the main cat to the subcat page to link it to the main cat? All terribly vague... Will experiment a bit, but when you have time would appreciate some guidance. Thanks! Meclee (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Image:Presa de decissions.png

Hi Weebiloobil. I'm leaving you this message because you have previously been involved as an adopter with Wikipedia's Adopt-a-user program. A clean-up of this program is currently underway, and as part of the process I am trying to find out who is and isn't still interested in remaining an adopter.

If you would prefer not to be part of the adoption program anymore, you need do nothing; when the overhaul of the project is completed your name will be removed from the list of active adopters. However, if you have current adoptees, an active adoption school or an interest in adopting in the near future, then please let us know by signing here.

If you want to remain in the project and can currently take on more adoptees, there is a serious backlog at :Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user; it would be enormously helpful if you could take on one or two of the users there. Please do keep an eye on the project for upcoming changes, we could use your opinions and your help! Yunshui 雲‍水 09:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, you are receiving this message because you are currently a participant of WikiProject Good articles. Since the creation of the WikiProject, over 200 user's have joined to help review good article nominations and contribute to other sections of the WikiProject. Over the years, several of these users have stopped reviewing articles and/or have become inactive with the project but are still listed as participates. In order to improve communications with other participants and get newsletters sent out faster (newsletters will begin to be sent out monthly starting in October) all participants that are no longer active with the WikiProject will be removed from the participants list.

If you are still interested in being a participant for this WikiProject, please sign your user name here and please help review some articles so we can reduce the size of the backlog. If you are no longer interested, you do not need to sign your name anywhere and your name will be removed from the participants list after the deadline. Remember that even if you are not interested at this time, you can always re-add your name to the list whenever you want. The deadline to sign your name on the page above will be November 1, 2012. Thank-you. 13:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for having to send out a second message but a user has brought to my attention that a point mentioned in the first message should be clarified. If user's don't sign on this page, they will be moved to an "Inactive Participants" list rather then be being removed from the entire WikiProject. Sorry for any confusion.--Dom497 (talk)15:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

|-

| valign="top" style="border: 2px #30B060 solid; padding: 1em; width: 45%; background-color:#F0FFEA;" |

; Project NewsAs of October 2, 2012 at 19:05 (UTC).

• There are currently 15,862 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.

• The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 345 unreviewed articles. Out of 439 total nominations, 24 are on hold, 66 are under review, and 4 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article! Even just reviewing one will help!

::The oldest unreviewed articles are: General sejm, Prime Minister of Vietnam, Tanisha Thomas, Kosta Pećanac, and Jilly Kitzinger.

::The categories with the largest backlogs are: Social sciences and society (80 articles), Sports and recreation (70 articles), Music (63 articles), Theatre, film and drama (52 articles), and History (41 articles). Please consider reviewing articles within these sections.

::There are currently 13 articles up for reassessment at Good Article Reassessment. Please help out and go to WP:GAR and review an article! Remember that anyone can review articles that are listed under "Community Reassessment" even if another user has already listed their opinion...the more opinions, the better!

; Member News

• There are currently 222 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to all the new members that joined during the past 17 months! If you aren't yet part of WikiProject Good Articles and interested in joining WikiProject Good Articles, go here and add you name. Everyone is welcomed!

• This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!

• If you haven't done so already, please remember to add your name to this list if you are still interested/active with this WikiProject. If you are no longer interested/active you don't need to add your name anywhere, you're name will be moved into a "inactive participant" list at the beginning of November. Inactive users will not receive future newsletters from this WikiProject via their talk page.

; GA Task forces

• There is currently not much going on at this time but there is a very large backlog. Until the next backlog elimination drive, please help reduce the number of nominations by reviewing articles and helping other reviewers that may need second opinions.

• Thanks to everyone who committed some time to help reduce the nominations backlog during the June-July 2012 backlog elimination drive. Most barnstars have been given out but there are still a few left. Participants that haven't gotten a barnstar yet should get it soon.

;Possible Fall/Winter 2012 Backlog Elimination Drive

• A discussion is currently being held on the WikiProject's talk page on weather another eliminations drive should take place within the next few months as the last one proved to be extremely successful. Please take the time to go to the the talk page and include your opinion on if you would be interested in taking part in a Fall/Winter 2012 elimination drive.

; Good Articles of the Month

Each month, 5 random good articles will be choose to be featured here as the good articles of the month.

• Barry (dog)
• I Love Bees
• Miles Copeland (Home and Away)
• London Country North East
• The Daily Show

| valign="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dom497/GA_Newsletter_Fall_2012" style="border: 2px #30B060 solid; padding: 1em; width: 45%; background-color: #F0FFEA;" |

; Some Tips About References/Sources

Having references included in articles is one of the most important aspects to a good article, let alone Wikipedia! Without them, no one would ever know what is true and what is false and Wikipedia probably wouldn't be where it is today. So this month, I will talk about how to check for references, how reliable they are, and so on and so forth.

The first thing to do when reviewing an nominee is to do a quick scan of the article. One of the things to look for is if the article has references! If you don't see a list at the bottom of the article page, quick-fail it.Before quick-failing the article, verify that one of the several referencing templates is correctly placed at the bottom of the article. If the template is not placed, try to place it to see if references are displayed. If this proof returns no references, then proceed to quick-failing. For newcomers, quick-failing is failing an article when you spot a problem before actually conducting a full review. If you do find a list of references (and in most cases you will) make sure to look through each and every one. If you want to save some time, use [http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/Checklinks this tool] as it will tell you if there are any problematic references in the article you are reviewing.

Next, check the reliability and type of the references/sources. In terms of the type of reference, check to see how many primary and/or secondary sources are included. Primary sources are the ones published by the subject of the article. For example, if the subject of the article has to do with the iPhone 4s and the source is published by Apple, it is considered a primary source. Secondary sources are those not published by the subject of the article (or in close relation to it). Newspapers are examples of secondary sources and considered one of the better types to include in the article (not saying primary sources are bad). If you find that most/all of the references are primary sources, notify the nominator about this issue(s) and place the article on hold once you have completed the review. Only in the event that a secondary source can't be found as a replacement, then the primary source can remain. If there is a good mix of primary and secondary sources, that is perfect and no references need to be changed.

Now, reliability. Forums are generally not considered reliable and some blog's may not be reliable either. Newspapers, most sources published by the subject, some blogs, etc. are considered reliable. If you don't know wether the source is reliable, ask for a second opinion. For more info about how to identify wether a reference is reliable or not, visit this article.

Finally, one of the more basic things to look for is that every statement in the article has at least one reference! The only case that a statement doesn't need a reference is when it is common sense that the statement is defiantly true and/or in the case where the statement can't be challenged, as per what Wikipedia says, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation."

; From the Editor

After a long 18 month hiatus, the third volume of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter is here! Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue of the newsletter here or on the editors talk page.

Also, Happy Halloween...in advance!!!

PLEASE READ: If you do not wish to receive future WikiProject Good Articles newsletter's on your talk page, please remove your self from this list. If you are viewing this newsletter from the WikiProject Good Articles page or on someone else's talk page and want to receive future newsletters on your talk page, please add your name to the list linked above.

; Contributors to this Issue

• Dom497 (Editor of this Issue)

; Did You Know...

• ... that 2,100 articles have been reviewed during all backlog elimination drives combined?
• ... that out of 4,055,039 articles on Wikipedia, only 15,846 are good articles?File:Jack-o-lantern.svg
• ... that there are currently over 400 video game good articles?

;Notes

{{reflist}}

|-

| colspan="2" valign="top" style="border: 2px #30B060 solid; padding: 1em; width: 55%; background-color: #F0FFEA;" |

Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005!

|-

| colspan="2" valign="top" style="border: 2px #30B060 solid; padding: 1em; width: 55%; background-color: #F0FFEA;" |

{{WikiProjectGATasks|centered=yes}}

|-

| valign="top" colspan="2" style="padding: 0.5em; text-align: right; font-size: 85%; " |

|}

|}

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 05:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

|}

|-

|

-------------------

|}

|}

|-

|

-------------------

|}

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Newsletter/January 2013/Delivery}}

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Newsletter/February 2013/Delivery}}

It's been awhile since you've heard from me, as I've been getting on OK. Now, I have a question about WP bureaucracy. A couple of days ago, I started a new article in connection to a what would have been a redline in another article. I put in some basic information and saved the article while looking for a particular WikiProject stub tag to use on it. Before I could even find the tag, less than five minutes from the first save, the article was nominated for speedy deletion. I'd like to propose a change to speedy deletion criteria that would require that an article be "up" for a certain amount of time before it could be nominated for speedy deletion. How would I go about introducing such a proposal? Thanks for your ongoiing handholding! Hope you are well. Regards, Meclee (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• As a listed GA participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should be eligible to appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Good_Article_RfC&action=watch this link]. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat|Contributions03:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It's that time again! Starting on March 1, there will be another GAN Backlog Drive! There will be several changes compared to previous drives:

• This drive will introduce a new component to it; a point system. In a nutshell, older nominations are worth more points than newer nominations. The top 3 participants who have the points will be awarded the Golden, Silver, or Bronze Wikipedia Puzzle Piece Trophy, respectively.
• Unlike the December 2013 Backlog Drive, earning an additional barnstar if you reached your goal has been removed.
• The allowance to have insufficient reviews has been lowered to 2 before being disqualified.
• An exception to the rule that all reviews must be completed before the deadline has been created.

Also, something that I thought I would share with all of you is that we raised $20.88 (USD) for the WMF in the December 2013 drive. It may not sound like a lot but considering that that was raised just because we reviewed articles, I would say that's pretty good! With that success, pledges can be made for the upcoming drive if you wish.

More info regarding the drive and full descriptions regarding the changes to this drive can be found on the the drive page. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on the drive talk page.

I look forward to your participation and hope that because of it, some day the backlog will be gone!

--Dom497

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on April 1, 2014! Sent by Dom497 on behalf of MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone! Hope you've all been having a great summer!

TheQ Editor recently proposed the idea of having another Backlog Drive in either September/October or November/December of this year. For those of you who have participated in the past two drives you know I was the one who organized them, however, come September, this will be my most important year in school so I will not be able to coordinate this drive (if it happens). TheQ Editor has volunteered to be a coordinator for the drive. If any of you would like to co-coordinator, please notify TheQ Editor on his talk page.

If you would be interested in participating in a Backlog Drive sometime before the end of this year, please notify TheQ Editor. Also, make sure to specify what month(s) work best for you.

At the time this message was sent out, the backlog was at 520 nominations. Since May, the backlog has been steadily increasing and we are currently near an all time high. Even though the backlog will not disappear over one drive, this drive can lead to several others which will (hopefully) lead to the day where there is no longer a backlog.

As always, the more participants, the better, and everyone is encouraged to participate!

Sent by Dom497--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!

As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:

For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.

For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).

The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.

--Dom497, Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

{{Ivmbox|Hello, Weebiloobil. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}

Cultural depictions of dinosaurs has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Atlantic hurricane has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Real4jyy (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

England has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Survivors (2008 TV series) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster (trout me!) 01:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Architecture of Leeds has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)