srakalike.blogg.se - Eight miles high imdb

Hahc 21 02:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry Hahc21, but this is simply untrue. Remember that the lead is a summary of the article content, ans thus, all information (with exceptions) on the lead must be on the article body. SO it is a requirement that references on the lead that are already covered on the article body to be removed from the former. Actually, the guideline does recomend to avoid the use of references on the lead unless some of the contents on the lead are highly controversial. Please could you explain why you have cited this as a problem when it is, in fact, a non issue?Įxcuse me if i'm stalking here, but as a reviewer of the drive i've got into this by job. Indeed, every single article I have ever had a hand in getting up to GA standard has had references in the lead section. Whether or not to have references in the lead section is entirely down to the discretion of editors contributing to a page. Nowhere on the lead section (manual of style) page or the GA criteria page does it say this.

The genres should be stated somewhere in the article.

References should not be used in the lead.

Have removed this sentence because it's not a widely accepted "fact" and also I couldn't find a replacement reference. I will attempt to source a new inline reference in the next few days to replace this dead one.

1 Uncategorized redirect and 1 dead link.

Now to address the specific points below. Furthermore, I would ask why the proper GA review template found at Template:GAList has not been used? This is the process that really should have been followed as per GA guidelines, since the faults with this article are relatively minor. ::I have concerns with the thoroughness of this GA review and am unsure why the review wasn't put "on hold" for seven days, as outlined at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, rather than just "failed" outright.

First review Resolved comments from Statυs ( talk) 18:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)