Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Onion/1
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
There is unsourced information throughout the article, some "Further reading" sources that should be considered for inclusion, and some oversection in the "Uses" section. Z1720 (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Z1720 I can try to help address some of these concerns so that we can hopefully keep the article as a GA. Is there usually a certain time frame this needs to be done by? Thanks. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Eucalyptusmint: There is no timeline as long as improvements are being made. Feel free to ping me when it is ready for a review. Z1720 (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- sounds good, will do. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Eucalyptusmint: There is no timeline as long as improvements are being made. Feel free to ping me when it is ready for a review. Z1720 (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Glad this is being addressed; I'll lend a hand, and have already asked Cwmhiraeth if she'd like to join in too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Appreciate it! Looks like you fixed most of the noted issues. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
1) Unsourced materials: have fixed all the obvious citation needed issues. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
2) Further reading: Incorporated the Gripshover journal article into 'History'. Formatted a bit better, and disarmed harv links. We're down to 2 books in the list, which seems reasonable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
3) 'Uses' too many subsections: merged. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Template:U:Z1720 - it feels like a GA again, cleaned up as above. Take a look. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)