GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: RonaldDuncan ( talk · contribs) 16:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
First review
|
---|
|
So, forgive me if I'm asking a question already answered elsewhere and I missed it, but, is the above an actual GA review by a reliable reviewer? Or is this a review of the review by the not-so-reliable reviewer? -- ₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for all the feedback. I was hoping to carry out the full review before the Coronation, however that was not possible. My initial analysis was that it is a good article, and clearly it is a very relevant subject at the moment. RonaldDuncan ( talk) 10:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
I'll provide the second opinion. Because of the obvious stability issues that will arise over the next couple of days however, I'll pick this up again a week after the coronation on 13th May; I do not believe that carrying out a review during the next few days would prove productive. The review will include source spotchecks for plagiarism and close paraphrasing, so I would take care that any information added over the next week meets those guidelines. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
[i]f that reviewer withdraws their offer, it'll be closely as a "quickfail", especially with an ongoing AN/I. Which it likely deserves, except that I'd personally really like to get the review, to have a fresh pair of eyes put their verdict in black and white, so that at least we have a possible roadroad to finish the job on a second go. So I'd recommend waiting on then". Slightly more of a "go to AN/I after the review", which, looking back, would have been the better course of action, although it is partially my fault; I gave my "alright, go on then". I thought that you wouldn't begin the review until the 13th, so I thought that if the AN/I was settled by then, then the article would be stable.
Edits that do not apply to the "stable" criterion include [...] good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) [...], as well as
complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections. AJ29, I fully respect your decision not to go ahead with the second review (or to review it as a quickfail, perhaps if one would rather say). And as TOD says, indeed rather anticipated it. But generic advice like "The talk page is a good place for that." is, to be reciprocally blunt, redundant, ill-directed, and it seems to be out-of-band. It's also rather a cleft stick to be poking at people, as too much talk-page activity has itself been cited as a quickfail criterion. 109.etc ( talk) 22:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: RonaldDuncan ( talk · contribs) 16:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
First review
|
---|
|
So, forgive me if I'm asking a question already answered elsewhere and I missed it, but, is the above an actual GA review by a reliable reviewer? Or is this a review of the review by the not-so-reliable reviewer? -- ₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for all the feedback. I was hoping to carry out the full review before the Coronation, however that was not possible. My initial analysis was that it is a good article, and clearly it is a very relevant subject at the moment. RonaldDuncan ( talk) 10:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
I'll provide the second opinion. Because of the obvious stability issues that will arise over the next couple of days however, I'll pick this up again a week after the coronation on 13th May; I do not believe that carrying out a review during the next few days would prove productive. The review will include source spotchecks for plagiarism and close paraphrasing, so I would take care that any information added over the next week meets those guidelines. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
[i]f that reviewer withdraws their offer, it'll be closely as a "quickfail", especially with an ongoing AN/I. Which it likely deserves, except that I'd personally really like to get the review, to have a fresh pair of eyes put their verdict in black and white, so that at least we have a possible roadroad to finish the job on a second go. So I'd recommend waiting on then". Slightly more of a "go to AN/I after the review", which, looking back, would have been the better course of action, although it is partially my fault; I gave my "alright, go on then". I thought that you wouldn't begin the review until the 13th, so I thought that if the AN/I was settled by then, then the article would be stable.
Edits that do not apply to the "stable" criterion include [...] good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) [...], as well as
complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections. AJ29, I fully respect your decision not to go ahead with the second review (or to review it as a quickfail, perhaps if one would rather say). And as TOD says, indeed rather anticipated it. But generic advice like "The talk page is a good place for that." is, to be reciprocally blunt, redundant, ill-directed, and it seems to be out-of-band. It's also rather a cleft stick to be poking at people, as too much talk-page activity has itself been cited as a quickfail criterion. 109.etc ( talk) 22:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)