GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Sahaib3005 ( talk · contribs) 06:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I think it passes. It is quite a good article. I’m not seeing any problems with the article. Sahaib3005 ( talk) 06:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I've changed the status of this nomination to "second opinion" in the hopes that a new reviewer can be found that way, since the original reviewer withdrew after the premature passage was reverted. Even though they then came back and repassed it a few days later, the new review was done so quickly that it would be better if an experienced reviewer checked the article against the criteria (just a quick look finds issues with MOS:LEAD, a GA criterion, which should be fixed prior to passage). A full GA review is needed, starting from scratch. Thank you. BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC) [updated at 03:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)]
Hello Czar. I'll be picking up the GA review. I can understand that the previous reviewer passed without comment, as the article is in good shape. I can do some nitpicking with respect to criterion 1 and criterion 4. The level is English required to be able to understand this article is quite high, and I believe we could serve our readers better by using more everyday language (or, when impossible, linking to wiktionary). It may be an overbroad interpretation of criterion 1, so don't feel forced to change all of them.
Appreciate the review, @ Femkemilene! I believe I've addressed the above either in comments or edits, where pertinent. czar 18:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Sahaib3005 ( talk · contribs) 06:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I think it passes. It is quite a good article. I’m not seeing any problems with the article. Sahaib3005 ( talk) 06:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I've changed the status of this nomination to "second opinion" in the hopes that a new reviewer can be found that way, since the original reviewer withdrew after the premature passage was reverted. Even though they then came back and repassed it a few days later, the new review was done so quickly that it would be better if an experienced reviewer checked the article against the criteria (just a quick look finds issues with MOS:LEAD, a GA criterion, which should be fixed prior to passage). A full GA review is needed, starting from scratch. Thank you. BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC) [updated at 03:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)]
Hello Czar. I'll be picking up the GA review. I can understand that the previous reviewer passed without comment, as the article is in good shape. I can do some nitpicking with respect to criterion 1 and criterion 4. The level is English required to be able to understand this article is quite high, and I believe we could serve our readers better by using more everyday language (or, when impossible, linking to wiktionary). It may be an overbroad interpretation of criterion 1, so don't feel forced to change all of them.
Appreciate the review, @ Femkemilene! I believe I've addressed the above either in comments or edits, where pertinent. czar 18:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)