Talk:Beelzebub (Sand Land)

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
The problem is the source. Out of 25 references, only 2 are not from the manga itself. I want to see more varieties of references, if they can be found. OhanaUnited 15:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like there's no other sources aside from the manga itself. I'm satified with the additional information added regarding about the manga. This article passes GA review. OhanaUnited 05:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAC review 

message: This article has been removed from the GA list due to having a in-universe perspective. If you disagree with this review fee free to take this article to WP:GA/R. Tarret 00:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The review has concluded with a consensus to uphold the delisting of this article due to in-universe prose.  The text of the review can be found here.  Once this issue is addressed, please feel free to renominate at WP:GAC. -Malkinann 01:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Delisted

message: Hello, I will be reviewing this article. So far it passes the quick fail criteria, so a full review is forthcoming. I did notice that it was at one time delisted for in-universe writing, and so far from a quick skim through it looks like it has greatly improved. Any questions, you may contact me on my talk page. Regards. FamicomJL 21:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
Article looks great, I am 100% sure that it is a good article on wikipedia, just needs to have fair use rationales for the images. Please send me a message on my talkpage when you add the rationales. Thanks! FamicomJL 23:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The things I asked for have been fixed. Congratulations!!! Good job to all who worked on it! FamicomJL (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
Article looks great, I am 100% sure that it is a good article on wikipedia, just needs to have fair use rationales for the images. Please send me a message on my talkpage when you add the rationales. Thanks! FamicomJL 23:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The things I asked for have been fixed. Congratulations!!! Good job to all who worked on it! FamicomJL (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: on hold

message: This article has been delisted due to failing the GA criteria. In addition to now being a redirect, the previous version of the article completely failed the GA requirements for referencing and verifiability with no reliable sources used at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA delisting