GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: BlackfullaLinguist ( talk · contribs) 13:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I have started a review of this article! I would like to note to anyone reading this review that my review is strictly according to the Good Article standards and I have no interest in debate surrounding the content - only how the content has been treated according to the criteria. Here is my review:
I believe with minor adjustments and the citations that this article meets GA status, and am giving contributors 7 days to make the suggested adjustments and/or discuss them further with me. BlackfullaLinguist ( talk) 13:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
In the absence of BlackfullaLinguist, who hasn't edited this page since August 2 and has made minimal Wikipedia edits since, and Xhepablo, who appears to have made a number of edits in response to this review on August 3 (but never posted here about it), and as also been inactive since then, I have taken the liberty of requesting a second opinion (or second reviewer) of this GA nomination.
What I'm hoping the new reviewer can do is to check to see both whether Xhepablo's edits address the concerns raised in BlackfullaLingust's review, and also check to make sure there are no other issues with the GA criteria that ought to be fixed. With luck, the article meets the criteria; if not, then hopefully the necessary fixes can be made. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 22:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I'm definitely still here. Have been wondering what became of this. Xhepablo —Preceding undated comment added 22:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm here to give a second opinion; pinging @ Xhepablo:
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: BlackfullaLinguist ( talk · contribs) 13:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I have started a review of this article! I would like to note to anyone reading this review that my review is strictly according to the Good Article standards and I have no interest in debate surrounding the content - only how the content has been treated according to the criteria. Here is my review:
I believe with minor adjustments and the citations that this article meets GA status, and am giving contributors 7 days to make the suggested adjustments and/or discuss them further with me. BlackfullaLinguist ( talk) 13:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
In the absence of BlackfullaLinguist, who hasn't edited this page since August 2 and has made minimal Wikipedia edits since, and Xhepablo, who appears to have made a number of edits in response to this review on August 3 (but never posted here about it), and as also been inactive since then, I have taken the liberty of requesting a second opinion (or second reviewer) of this GA nomination.
What I'm hoping the new reviewer can do is to check to see both whether Xhepablo's edits address the concerns raised in BlackfullaLingust's review, and also check to make sure there are no other issues with the GA criteria that ought to be fixed. With luck, the article meets the criteria; if not, then hopefully the necessary fixes can be made. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 22:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I'm definitely still here. Have been wondering what became of this. Xhepablo —Preceding undated comment added 22:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm here to give a second opinion; pinging @ Xhepablo: