- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Delist. Please fix this article and bring it back to GAN! buidhe 17:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I have never performed a good article review, nor a good article reassessment, so not confident in doing this as an individual reassessment.
I see a number of issues disqualifying this article from been a good article, including:
- It is not difficult to find unreferenced paragraphs (examples: most of the "Leadership" section; first paragraph of "Recent and planned activities"; second paragraph of "Directives").
- The article is at some points excessively detailed (examples: the three-paragraph quote in "Activities (2005–2017)"; the section "NEO detection").
- The article is very messy and especially recent events or info is randomly organized (examples: "Leadership", "Directives", and "Budget" are in three different locations; the sections "Recent and planned activities" and "Activities (2005–2017)" seems to be the preferred location to dump new info).
I would like to hear what other think. Thanks. ― Hebsen (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delist - thanks for raising this. I agree it falls flat on some of the GA criteria (not very well-written, unsourced material). The article was last GA-assessed in 2009. It has since grown from 4,461 words to 10,290 words, so most of the article is unchecked for GA standards. L150 17:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delist – It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags (See also {{QF}}). --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)