GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Tom (LT) ( talk · contribs) 04:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi, nice to meet you, I will be taking up this review. I'll be reviewing this article against the six good article criteria (
WP:GA?). As way of introduction, I mostly edit anatomy and medical articles and have reviewed around 75 - 100 articles for GA status. I will spend a few days examining this article before posting my assessment and as always look forward to a dialogue after if there are no significant issues identified. Cheers,
Tom (LT) (
talk)
04:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Cinadon36, thanks for your edits and this nomination. I have had a look and do have some issues:
Thanks greatly for your edits to this article - it's clear a lot of effort has been put in, and the referencing is solid and the pictures are pretty relevant. However, Rome wasn't built in a day and, with the active copyediting tag and these issues, I'm going to fail this review for the moment. Happy to take up the review again if you want to renominate once you've addressed these issues. Thanks again for your contributions, Tom (LT) ( talk) 09:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Tom (LT) ( talk · contribs) 04:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi, nice to meet you, I will be taking up this review. I'll be reviewing this article against the six good article criteria (
WP:GA?). As way of introduction, I mostly edit anatomy and medical articles and have reviewed around 75 - 100 articles for GA status. I will spend a few days examining this article before posting my assessment and as always look forward to a dialogue after if there are no significant issues identified. Cheers,
Tom (LT) (
talk)
04:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Cinadon36, thanks for your edits and this nomination. I have had a look and do have some issues:
Thanks greatly for your edits to this article - it's clear a lot of effort has been put in, and the referencing is solid and the pictures are pretty relevant. However, Rome wasn't built in a day and, with the active copyediting tag and these issues, I'm going to fail this review for the moment. Happy to take up the review again if you want to renominate once you've addressed these issues. Thanks again for your contributions, Tom (LT) ( talk) 09:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)