Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Danny Deever/1
=[[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Danny Deever/1|Danny Deever]]=
{{atopg}}
: {{al|Danny Deever|noname=yes}} • • Most recent review
: {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Good article reassessment/Danny Deever/1|Category:GAR/74}} Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
GA from 2006. This article has many unsourced statements, original research, and uses circular referencing. Spinixster (chat!) 10:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:@Spinixster Thanks for flagging this. I'm recovering from covid at the moment so haven't much spare capacity, but I'll try and have a look over it in the next week or two and see what can be salvaged. Standards have definitely moved on a bit in the last 17 years! Andrew Gray (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
::@Andrew Gray, I can also take a look towards cleanup over the next few days if it would be of assistance? Eddie891 Talk Work 12:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
:::@Eddie891 that would be very kind, thankyou! Andrew Gray (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
::::I just added a few citations and removed an uncited claim. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
::I've overhauled the background (though it might need more tweaking). Working on digging up some suitable sourcing for critical commentary. Andrew Gray (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
::: I've added a little more, and removed an uncited paragraph which does seem to have been editorial. The rest seems to be both sufficient and properly cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
:Keep, the work by Gray et al. looks good to me. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️⚧️) 00:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}