GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld ( talk · contribs) 17:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC) Will review within a couple of days.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Yerevantsi: Reviewing now, sorry for the delay.
Place all book sources in bibliography and use footnotes for pages. You can draw the sources up again here.
I was expecting to pass this pretty soon, but I think it's still a little rough around the edges and the sourcing needs to be made consistent. In some places the dates recited are a bit repetitive and almost in note form. Would benefit from a further copy edit and ideally some expansion of architecture before I'm ready to pass.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Yerevantsi: Are you going to respond here? I'll leave this for a few more days but I'm afraid I'll have to fail it if it isn't improved by then.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Yerevantsi: I gather there's nothing more available documenting its architecture? The prose seems to have much improved now anyway. Can you let me know if you can find anything before we proceed?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to withdraw this nomination, because the article is not ready to be classified as a good article. -- Երևանցի talk 00:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
We're just about OK I think Yerevantsi since the copyediting of it by Eric and Casliber, but when I ask a question about things like architecture I'd really appreciate an adequate response from you as well as some sort of appreciation that I've spent the time reviewing it. I'll take for granted that nothing more can be found about it architecturally. This looks OK for GA now I believe, thanks for bearing with me on this, you've already waited long enough.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld ( talk · contribs) 17:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC) Will review within a couple of days.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Yerevantsi: Reviewing now, sorry for the delay.
Place all book sources in bibliography and use footnotes for pages. You can draw the sources up again here.
I was expecting to pass this pretty soon, but I think it's still a little rough around the edges and the sourcing needs to be made consistent. In some places the dates recited are a bit repetitive and almost in note form. Would benefit from a further copy edit and ideally some expansion of architecture before I'm ready to pass.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Yerevantsi: Are you going to respond here? I'll leave this for a few more days but I'm afraid I'll have to fail it if it isn't improved by then.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Yerevantsi: I gather there's nothing more available documenting its architecture? The prose seems to have much improved now anyway. Can you let me know if you can find anything before we proceed?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to withdraw this nomination, because the article is not ready to be classified as a good article. -- Երևանցի talk 00:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
We're just about OK I think Yerevantsi since the copyediting of it by Eric and Casliber, but when I ask a question about things like architecture I'd really appreciate an adequate response from you as well as some sort of appreciation that I've spent the time reviewing it. I'll take for granted that nothing more can be found about it architecturally. This looks OK for GA now I believe, thanks for bearing with me on this, you've already waited long enough.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)