There was no response before this got archived at Wikipedia talk: Good article nominations/Archive 20#User: Jonas Vinther is insisting it is not his responsibility to list nominations that he passes at WP: GA from what I can tell. ) , 24 November 2014 (UTC) For the record, I had to fix the your recent entry of Egon Mayer, who had been placed between Sidney Mashbir and Maslama ibn Abd al-Malik. I restored the page, but the editor seems not to be checking sources very well or looking for obvious vandalism.
From what I recall, User: Jonas Vinther still had a few alphabetization issues to resolve: There is a difference. Chris Gualtieri (talk) , 23 November 2014 (UTC) And to elaborate the problem, all the reassessments are all copy pasted and he has not even attempted to resolve the issue or give time to correct it before listing it for removal.
I picked one at random and got found obvious signs of alteration on the Nanbu clan.
Cheers Mister Bee1966 (talk) , 24 November 2014 (UTC) Adamdaley has started a bunch of good article reassessments and plopped a bunch of citation needed tags where they were not needed or already inline.
Chris Gualtieri (talk) , 23 November 2014 (UTC) So what if I am hard on Cornwallis in India all because of one citation needed.
I will say this, I do not have any of the resources for this article.
Obviously, Chris Gualtieri (talk · contribs) doesn't know me that well and I know of at least one person on Wikipedia who does know I have a high standard for sources/references/inline citations and/or whatever you want to call them.
If there isn't one at the end of a paragraph I'm not going to go buy a book just to make sure it's there. It's sad to say that there has been quite a lot of people who do not patrol these pages such as the Nanbu clan article, yet while it is a "GA-class".
You'll be amazed what I've found among not only "GA-class" but other assessed articles in Wiki Project Military History.
Some of it funny (in a sad way, these people obviously didn't read the template's correctly hence lack to detail of entering such attributes) and some are clearly templates not being correctly done which I have managed to correct not only several hundred but into a few thousand articles.
Adamdaley (talk) , 23 November 2014 (UTC) , is not a valid reason, even ignoring its grammatical infelicities.
The good article criteria are specific, and it is up to you to explain which of those criteria are not met by a particular article.
The goal of a reassessment is to, if at all possible, fix those facets of the article that fall short of the GA criteria: without an explanation from you of what is actually wrong with the article beyond inline citations, you're not helping it to be improved.