Talk:Mouna Ragam/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I had planned to take this article to FA at one point. But now that I've lost my mojo, and I've had consecutive FAC failures, I'm scrapping those plans for this. Instead, I want to see that this article is still at least GA-worthy, since five years have passed since it was promoted to GA and it has been substantially edited in that time period. --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Just had a quick look at it and it easily looks a GA. Not sure what you're worried about.† Encyclopædius 11:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• After reading the article, I feel like it still is GA-worthy and this reassessment was not necessary.Krish | Talk To Me 15:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• I went through the article and believe that it meets the GA criteria. VedantTalk 17:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you Numerounovedant, Krish! and Encyclopædius. I guess that with your comments, it's time to close the GAR. It's obvious that the consensus is favourable. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)