I disagree with the deletion. The tag was put by the original creator, who clearly got mad at the people in the wiki after the recent events. The page seems valid and useful to me. --
02:02, 16 May 2006 (CDT)
Cleanup Tag[]
I disagree with the removal of both the cleanup tag and the stub tag. This article does not meet the quality level of other articles in the wiki. To me, the Cleanup tag is still appropriate here. --161.88.255.140 10:57, 18 May 2006 (CDT)
- Do you have any specific objection? The text seems fine to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.113.27.79 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 18 May 2006.
- Since my posting, four users have made five edits to help clean-up the text; that's a pretty good sign that it needs work. I've made one edit so far, and will look at the other sections as I have time to make suggested revisions (that others will further refine, I'm sure). --161.88.255.140 11:21, 18 May 2006 (CDT)
- You complain about cleanup, yet authorship by committee has left the article littered with unparallel tense, inconsistent punctuation, comma splices everywhere, and the Lord only knows what other mediocrities. The irony! 18.187.1.68 08:22, 19 May 2006 (CDT)
- And the article was worse in its original draft, which is why I believe the cleanup tag should not have been removed when it was. This article still needs work. --I am 161.88 11:07, 19 May 2006 (CDT)
I don't think it's a stub anymore (unless someone here knows more to the story), and I don't think it merits a cleanup tag either. It's pretty decent now (not just because I put some work into it). If you find it atrocious, that's a different issue, but if it just needs more work, so do all the mission articles for Cantha right now. It's a lot of text and will be irnoed out in time. Are you saying that in its present state the article is not on par with any average article on the wiki? That's really the mark. Not that the article has flaws. --Karlos 20:00, 19 May 2006 (CDT)
- I think its more the lack of a coherent storyline in factions, rather than any problem with the article --Sami 03:51, 22 May 2006 (CDT)
Fixed a small grammatical error in which the phrase "They reach" was repeated. --Vena Maransdatter 19:08, 20 May 2006 (CDT)