GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto ( talk · contribs) 13:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The Sea Peoples are fascinating; I would be very happy to review this article.
The first thing that I notice is that there are a whole bunch of {{citation needed}} tags on the article: in the Sea Peoples#History of the concept, Sea Peoples#Sardinian, Sicilian and Tyrrhenian peoples hypotheses, and Sea Peoples#Invader hypothesis sections. This needs to be fixed immediately if the article is to have any chance of being classed as a GA – indeed, it is one of the four criteria by which an article can be immediately failed without further review. What I will do is put this article on hold for a week to give you a chance to fix this, and if these facts are cited then I shall return to the review. If these cn tags are removed significantly before those seven days are up, feel free to ping me or put a message on my talkpage and I will try to get back to the review asap. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 13:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi @ Caeciliusinhorto: thanks for taking this on, and being patient with the above. I have now fixed all these threshold issues. Oncenawhile ( talk) 23:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Oncenawhile: sorry I haven't managed to get back to this sooner, I was knocked over the head by Real Lifetm over the last week. Some initial comments:
That will give you something to work on, at least. I'll come back to the article and comment on the rest soon. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 16:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Back with more commentary:
Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 19:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
And now, after my first stream-of-consciousness run through, some more general comments.
Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 20:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Caeciliusinhorto: these are great comments, thank you. I will work through them over the next few weeks and will ping you when i'm done. Oncenawhile ( talk) 21:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Over a month has passed and there are still serious structural problems with this article, Caeciliusinhorto. I'd recommend failing this one. Still, you've given lots of useful tips that can be used to improve the article so hopefully we'll see it appearing at GAN in a much better state in future. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 21:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Midnightblueowl. It has been more than a month since I finished reviewing the article, and there were significant issues with the article at that point. Those issues still exist, despite your hard work on the article Onceinawhile. And none of us can see at this point any prospect that the article will be GA-ready within, say, the next week. This is currently the fourth-longest outstanding review for GA status.
At this point, I think I really have no choice but to fail the article, but I do hope that you keep working on the article, and I'd be very happy to see it come to GAN again in a better-prepared state. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 15:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto ( talk · contribs) 13:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The Sea Peoples are fascinating; I would be very happy to review this article.
The first thing that I notice is that there are a whole bunch of {{citation needed}} tags on the article: in the Sea Peoples#History of the concept, Sea Peoples#Sardinian, Sicilian and Tyrrhenian peoples hypotheses, and Sea Peoples#Invader hypothesis sections. This needs to be fixed immediately if the article is to have any chance of being classed as a GA – indeed, it is one of the four criteria by which an article can be immediately failed without further review. What I will do is put this article on hold for a week to give you a chance to fix this, and if these facts are cited then I shall return to the review. If these cn tags are removed significantly before those seven days are up, feel free to ping me or put a message on my talkpage and I will try to get back to the review asap. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 13:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi @ Caeciliusinhorto: thanks for taking this on, and being patient with the above. I have now fixed all these threshold issues. Oncenawhile ( talk) 23:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Oncenawhile: sorry I haven't managed to get back to this sooner, I was knocked over the head by Real Lifetm over the last week. Some initial comments:
That will give you something to work on, at least. I'll come back to the article and comment on the rest soon. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 16:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Back with more commentary:
Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 19:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
And now, after my first stream-of-consciousness run through, some more general comments.
Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 20:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Caeciliusinhorto: these are great comments, thank you. I will work through them over the next few weeks and will ping you when i'm done. Oncenawhile ( talk) 21:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Over a month has passed and there are still serious structural problems with this article, Caeciliusinhorto. I'd recommend failing this one. Still, you've given lots of useful tips that can be used to improve the article so hopefully we'll see it appearing at GAN in a much better state in future. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 21:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Midnightblueowl. It has been more than a month since I finished reviewing the article, and there were significant issues with the article at that point. Those issues still exist, despite your hard work on the article Onceinawhile. And none of us can see at this point any prospect that the article will be GA-ready within, say, the next week. This is currently the fourth-longest outstanding review for GA status.
At this point, I think I really have no choice but to fail the article, but I do hope that you keep working on the article, and I'd be very happy to see it come to GAN again in a better-prepared state. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 15:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)