Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: DelistThe issues raised have not been addressed Aircorn (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has hatnotes listed at the top of the page. If it uses unreliable sources, then it does not meet the Good Article criteria. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist – per nom. – zmbro _(talk) 16:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist - nothing happening. Urve (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This has been unnecessarily tag bombed. I am unsure about Encyclopedia Astronautica. It is used on thousands of articles here, but is clearly self published. I would be surprised if there were not better sources as they seem to essentially do what we do and collect other sourced information. As to the page numbers that does need to be addressed. Aircorn (talk) 07:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Transatracurium: as the original nominator Aircorn (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep at current level since this cites some sources that are crowd sourced and the site sites other sources. Rather, those site should be replaced with the relevant refernces on them.