| Revision as of 13:25, 4 April 2008 editReywas92 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers81,320 edits →Angkor Wat: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:32, 4 April 2008 edit undoAnmaFinotera (talk | contribs)107,494 edits →Angkor Wat: replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| **Was such a comment really necessary? How about a little ]. ] (]) 13:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC) | **Was such a comment really necessary? How about a little ]. ] (]) 13:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ***Sorry, but the edits I've seen of you, especially on Jeopardy, are removing valid references, removing interesting info that is supposedly too crufty, and then tagging it with things you did. Rather than hurting the project by having one less FA, I'm going to attempt to actually make the article better. <font color="#1EC112" size="3px">]</font><sup><font color="#45E03A">]</font></sup> 13:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC) | ***Sorry, but the edits I've seen of you, especially on Jeopardy, are removing valid references, removing interesting info that is supposedly too crufty, and then tagging it with things you did. Rather than hurting the project by having one less FA, I'm going to attempt to actually make the article better. <font color="#1EC112" size="3px">]</font><sup><font color="#45E03A">]</font></sup> 13:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ****I have never, ever removed a valid reference that complies with ] and I resent the implication that I have. This article has nothing to do with Jeopardy, and your comments were completely inappropriate, unnecessary, and down right rude and insulting. ] (]) 13:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:32, 4 April 2008
Angkor Wat
I am nominating this article for review as I feel it no longer meets the FA criteria. Most concerning is its failure of 1c and 2c with whole paragraphs being appearing to be completely unsourced and confusing mix of referencing styles used. I also feel it fails criteria 3 with an excessive amount of images that flow all the way down the external link sections. Most are unnecessary and do not illustrate the sections they are in and appear to have been added for decoration. It also fails criteria 2a and WP:LEAD in that it does not adequately summarize the entire article. Collectonian (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Collectonian, You practically ruined Jeopardy! in many ways, and I don't want you defeaturing this. I'll start today with the images and move on to the refs soon. I'm not an author, so someone else can work on the lead. Reywas92 12:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Was such a comment really necessary? How about a little civility. Collectonian (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but the edits I've seen of you, especially on Jeopardy, are removing valid references, removing interesting info that is supposedly too crufty, and then tagging it with things you did. Rather than hurting the project by having one less FA, I'm going to attempt to actually make the article better. Reywas92 13:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have never, ever removed a valid reference that complies with WP:RS and I resent the implication that I have. This article has nothing to do with Jeopardy, and your comments were completely inappropriate, unnecessary, and down right rude and insulting. Collectonian (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but the edits I've seen of you, especially on Jeopardy, are removing valid references, removing interesting info that is supposedly too crufty, and then tagging it with things you did. Rather than hurting the project by having one less FA, I'm going to attempt to actually make the article better. Reywas92 13:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Was such a comment really necessary? How about a little civility. Collectonian (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)