What I see after quickly looking through the talk page and article edit history is that we have two primary editors who care about the article and have made valuable contributions. I also note that both editors see things differently and have trouble getting along. This is common on WP and in real life also so there is no need to blame anyone or accuse or pick a side. Better to just seek solutions. Here are some suggestions:
Good luck, I hope you two can find a way to make this work.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: DustFormsWords ( talk) 00:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'm sorry you've had to wait in line so long to get such a depressing result, but I'm afraid I have to quickfail this for having warning tags on the article which are clearly still relevant. I'm going to take one more look over the article to make sure I'm right, and then proceed to fail. - DustFormsWords ( talk) 00:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I am failing this article under quick-fail criterion three:
I am therefore proceeding to fail without conducting a further review of the article. However, I note that it is generally a well-referenced article, and I urge you to continue work and re-nominate in the future. High priority tasks include reducing the number of single-sentence paragraphs, considering further level 3 section headers to improve readability, and rewriting the lead paragraph in conformance with the manual of style for lead sections. Best wishes - DustFormsWords ( talk) 00:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
What I see after quickly looking through the talk page and article edit history is that we have two primary editors who care about the article and have made valuable contributions. I also note that both editors see things differently and have trouble getting along. This is common on WP and in real life also so there is no need to blame anyone or accuse or pick a side. Better to just seek solutions. Here are some suggestions:
Good luck, I hope you two can find a way to make this work.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: DustFormsWords ( talk) 00:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'm sorry you've had to wait in line so long to get such a depressing result, but I'm afraid I have to quickfail this for having warning tags on the article which are clearly still relevant. I'm going to take one more look over the article to make sure I'm right, and then proceed to fail. - DustFormsWords ( talk) 00:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I am failing this article under quick-fail criterion three:
I am therefore proceeding to fail without conducting a further review of the article. However, I note that it is generally a well-referenced article, and I urge you to continue work and re-nominate in the future. High priority tasks include reducing the number of single-sentence paragraphs, considering further level 3 section headers to improve readability, and rewriting the lead paragraph in conformance with the manual of style for lead sections. Best wishes - DustFormsWords ( talk) 00:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)