- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result: No improvemnent, so delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A 2007 listing of a still in-use programming language; no surprise that huge amounts of material is unsourced, violating GA criterion 2. I also feel that too much detail is being paid to the syntax of the language, possibly violating criterion 3b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- See above for further issues. No harm in starting the reassessment now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @AirshipJungleman29: can you notify the major contributors, reviewers and initial nominator? Pings may be missed, and I only pinged those with over 5% authorship. Feel free to remove this comment afterwards. Femke (alt) (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Abductive, Comp.arch, Thumperward, and Akeosnhaoe:
- Perhaps @Peterl, Gadfium, TJRC, MrOllie, and Peaceray: too. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Femke (alt), this article annoyingly dates to before the days of nominator/reviewer.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not a major contributor to this article, I just ran a couple of bots on it. Abductive (reasoning) 14:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.