| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: FenrisAureus ( talk · contribs) 06:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- My main issue is that at first glance I cannot tell whether or not the subject of the article is a political body or a public office. If it is the former I would suggest clearing that up by replacing "organ" with "body" in the first sentence.
- Multiple gramatical errors including, but not limited to: To be eligible for election to the presidency, one had already to be a member of the LCY Central Committee. and According to scholar Slobodan Stanković, these stipulations intended to ensure that the president and secretary supervised each other
- Consider doing a copy edit pass over the article for grammar and clairity.
- @ FenrisAureus: In regards to "political body or a public pffice".... Organ is a normal term. According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of an organ is "a subordinate group or organization that performs specialized function"; the LCY statute uses the term "political-executive organ", and by definition, an organ cannot be an office.
- As for the sentences, I don't get what you mean.. What is the grammatical error in the following sentence?: "To be eligible for election to the presidency, one had already to be a member of the LCY Central Committee." Do you want to remove the commas? --
TheUzbek (
talk) 17:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- In regards to the specific examples I cited, I would correct them as such: "To be eligible for election to the presidency, one had to already be a member of the LCY Central Committee" and "According to scholar Slobodan Stanković, these stipulations were intended to ensure that the president and secretary supervised each other"—
FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (
talk) 18:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have nothing against these changes; English is more wordy than my native language! However, are these sentences grammatically incorrect? I would not think so, especially the second one on Stankovic. For instance, this article writes, "
these rules intended", Newsweek "
these rules intended to limit casualties" My point here is that there is a difference between grammatically incorrect and improving the flow of the sentence. I agree that "one had to already be" is correct, however! :)
TheUzbek (
talk) 18:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- An interesting quirk of the human brain is that when one is raised with a particular language, one can fairly easily instinctually point out that something is wrong but not why. Suffice it to say that I am neither a linguist nor an english teacher, so I have no clue what english grammar rule it violates but the newsweek one doesn't. —
FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (
talk) 19:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- So you are saying that if I wrote "rules intended to ensure that" instead of "stipulations intended to ensure that", it would be correct?
TheUzbek (
talk) 19:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- No. I am saying that I am simply unable to explain this to you. Apologies. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) ( talk) 19:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- So you are saying that if I wrote "rules intended to ensure that" instead of "stipulations intended to ensure that", it would be correct?
TheUzbek (
talk) 19:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- An interesting quirk of the human brain is that when one is raised with a particular language, one can fairly easily instinctually point out that something is wrong but not why. Suffice it to say that I am neither a linguist nor an english teacher, so I have no clue what english grammar rule it violates but the newsweek one doesn't. —
FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (
talk) 19:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have nothing against these changes; English is more wordy than my native language! However, are these sentences grammatically incorrect? I would not think so, especially the second one on Stankovic. For instance, this article writes, "
these rules intended", Newsweek "
these rules intended to limit casualties" My point here is that there is a difference between grammatically incorrect and improving the flow of the sentence. I agree that "one had to already be" is correct, however! :)
TheUzbek (
talk) 18:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- In regards to the specific examples I cited, I would correct them as such: "To be eligible for election to the presidency, one had to already be a member of the LCY Central Committee" and "According to scholar Slobodan Stanković, these stipulations were intended to ensure that the president and secretary supervised each other"—
FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (
talk) 18:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- B. It complies with the
manual of style guidelines for
lead sections,
layout,
words to watch,
fiction, and
list incorporation:
- Seems good but apart from the strict interperetation of this criterion, the article contains multiple redlinks of questionable notability, mainly
Statute of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia,
Commission for the Reorganisation and Further Development of the LCY and
Rules of Procedure on the Organisation and Activity of the Presidency of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia. Consider going back and determining which are truly notable. (IMO the redlinks for the congressional sessions are backed up by precedent as some already have articles.)
- My answer is that these are notable in themselves. See, for instance,
Rules of the Workers' Party of Korea and
Constitution of the Chinese Communist Party. My aim is to create articles for these regulations.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TheUzbek (
talk •
contribs)
- Fair enough. I withdraw my objections.— FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) ( talk) 16:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- My answer is that these are notable in themselves. See, for instance,
Rules of the Workers' Party of Korea and
Constitution of the Chinese Communist Party. My aim is to create articles for these regulations.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TheUzbek (
talk •
contribs)
- + Doesn't these sentences in the lead clearly state that the presidency is an organ/political body, not an office? I'll try to clarify more, but it states that each branch was represented with a member and that the LCY president was an ex officio member of this organ: "At the apex of this system was the presidency. This system was institutionally reformed after the purge of Josip Broz Tito's long-standing heir apparent Aleksandar Ranković and replaced with a system of equal representation of the constitutive branches of the LCY in its presidency. From 1969 onwards, each republican LC branch had two representatives and one ex officio member, each autonomous province one representative and one ex officio member and the League of Communists Organisation in the Yugoslav People's Army had one ex officio member. In this system, Tito, the LCY leader from 1939 to his death on 4 May 1980, was the only member of the presidency who was not elected to represent a constitutive branch of the LCY, and was an ex officio member through holding the office of president of the LCY Central Committee. Upon his death, the LCY presidency was abolished and replaced by the office of president of the Presidency of the LCY Central Committee. Officeholders were limited to one-year terms, and the offices rotated annually between the LCY's constitutive branches. This was a system of collective leadership, and the presidency president had to work with the secretary of the Presidency of the LCY Central Committee, which had a two-year term limit and also rotated between the LCY's constitutive branches.
- "
TheUzbek (
talk) 17:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- In regards to the Presidency, I am simply suggesting that you make it clearer to the reader that the article's subject, the
Presidency of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia (the body) is distinct from the office of its leader, the
President of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia (the office) as they both have confusingly similar names. —
FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (
talk) 18:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Aha now I understand what you mean! TheUzbek ( talk) 18:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Added this sentence to the lead; "The LCY president presided over the work of the presidency and, together with the presidency's secretary, set the agenda and organised its sessions." TheUzbek ( talk) 18:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- In regards to the Presidency, I am simply suggesting that you make it clearer to the reader that the article's subject, the
Presidency of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia (the body) is distinct from the office of its leader, the
President of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia (the office) as they both have confusingly similar names. —
FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (
talk) 18:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Seems good but apart from the strict interperetation of this criterion, the article contains multiple redlinks of questionable notability, mainly
Statute of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia,
Commission for the Reorganisation and Further Development of the LCY and
Rules of Procedure on the Organisation and Activity of the Presidency of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia. Consider going back and determining which are truly notable. (IMO the redlinks for the congressional sessions are backed up by precedent as some already have articles.)
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it
verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline:
- B.
Reliable sources are
cited inline. All content that
could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- C. It contains
no original research:
- D. It contains no
copyright violations nor
plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the
main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays
focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see
summary style):
- A. It addresses the
main aspects of the topic:
- Is it
neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by
images?
- A. Images are
tagged with their
copyright status, and
valid non-free use rationales are provided for
non-free content:
- B. Images are
relevant to the topic, and have
suitable captions:
- A. Images are
tagged with their
copyright status, and
valid non-free use rationales are provided for
non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- The article looks good to me with the exception of the need for some trivial copyediting. I will put this review on hold for a period of 7 days. I will put a cleanup tag on the article and post it to
WP:Cleanup. At such time that the grammar and clairity issues are fixed, I will immediately pass it.—
FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (
talk) 19:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- OK then, but I am surprised that you added a banner saying it is poorly written while you can mention only two grammatical errors, of which one is probably not an error. But I guess I have to accept this.
TheUzbek (
talk) 19:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- I will be offline for about 5-7 hrs. When I am back I will reread the article and reconsider. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) ( talk) 20:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- For the record though, cleanup tags are not an attack or an indictment of your work. Their purpose is to alert other editors to work that needs doing, and as you yourself said you are not a native english speaker and so I have taken these steps to alert other editors to get them to help with copyediting. —
FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (
talk) 20:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- My point here is one of clarity. The way you've communicated and the examples you have given have not convinced me that the article is that "off". I have, however, read the text and done some copyediting myself. There were some mistakes, especially in the first section, but I could not uncover anything substantial. I'm not taking it personally, but this is the first time on WP I've been told my writing is not good enough, which is fair, but then I would have liked more substantial examples to understand what those errors were so that I could learn from them and improve. As for the article getting a copyedit by other users, I'm all for it!
TheUzbek (
talk) 20:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- In my opinion the article is only marginally non compliant with criteria, so under WP:GAN/I#R3 Part 3, so I will fix any issues that I see as I go. The hold status is just a formality as I will be offline until tonight. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) ( talk) 20:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- I apologize for the lack of clarity, but I honestly don't know how to communicate the issues with the article other than fixing them myself, (which is a problem on my part and not yours). So I will fix the issues that I see myself in a few hours and pass the nomination. Expect an update at around 04:00 UTC — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) ( talk) 20:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- The formalisation of the party's political structure was not consolidated in the pre-1948 years. I am having trouble understanding this sentence. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) ( talk) 01:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Other than that, I have fixed all other issues.
If you can rewrite this sentence,consider the nomination passed. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) ( talk) 02:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC) - I took my best guess at rewording the sentence. If I got it wrong feel free to correct me. Passed—
FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (
talk) 06:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Changed it to: "Until 1948, informal norms often trumped formal decision-making institutions, which remained weak and underdeveloped." Good?
TheUzbek (
talk) 07:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yup! Congrats and good work! — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) ( talk) 07:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Changed it to: "Until 1948, informal norms often trumped formal decision-making institutions, which remained weak and underdeveloped." Good?
TheUzbek (
talk) 07:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- My point here is one of clarity. The way you've communicated and the examples you have given have not convinced me that the article is that "off". I have, however, read the text and done some copyediting myself. There were some mistakes, especially in the first section, but I could not uncover anything substantial. I'm not taking it personally, but this is the first time on WP I've been told my writing is not good enough, which is fair, but then I would have liked more substantial examples to understand what those errors were so that I could learn from them and improve. As for the article getting a copyedit by other users, I'm all for it!
TheUzbek (
talk) 20:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- OK then, but I am surprised that you added a banner saying it is poorly written while you can mention only two grammatical errors, of which one is probably not an error. But I guess I have to accept this.
TheUzbek (
talk) 19:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- The article looks good to me with the exception of the need for some trivial copyediting. I will put this review on hold for a period of 7 days. I will put a cleanup tag on the article and post it to
WP:Cleanup. At such time that the grammar and clairity issues are fixed, I will immediately pass it.—
FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (
talk) 19:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: FenrisAureus ( talk · contribs) 06:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- My main issue is that at first glance I cannot tell whether or not the subject of the article is a political body or a public office. If it is the former I would suggest clearing that up by replacing "organ" with "body" in the first sentence.
- Multiple gramatical errors including, but not limited to: To be eligible for election to the presidency, one had already to be a member of the LCY Central Committee. and According to scholar Slobodan Stanković, these stipulations intended to ensure that the president and secretary supervised each other
- Consider doing a copy edit pass over the article for grammar and clairity.
- @ FenrisAureus: In regards to "political body or a public pffice".... Organ is a normal term. According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of an organ is "a subordinate group or organization that performs specialized function"; the LCY statute uses the term "political-executive organ", and by definition, an organ cannot be an office.
- As for the sentences, I don't get what you mean.. What is the grammatical error in the following sentence?: "To be eligible for election to the presidency, one had already to be a member of the LCY Central Committee." Do you want to remove the commas? --
TheUzbek (
talk) 17:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- In regards to the specific examples I cited, I would correct them as such: "To be eligible for election to the presidency, one had to already be a member of the LCY Central Committee" and "According to scholar Slobodan Stanković, these stipulations were intended to ensure that the president and secretary supervised each other"—
FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (
talk) 18:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have nothing against these changes; English is more wordy than my native language! However, are these sentences grammatically incorrect? I would not think so, especially the second one on Stankovic. For instance, this article writes, "
these rules intended", Newsweek "
these rules intended to limit casualties" My point here is that there is a difference between grammatically incorrect and improving the flow of the sentence. I agree that "one had to already be" is correct, however! :)
TheUzbek (
talk) 18:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- An interesting quirk of the human brain is that when one is raised with a particular language, one can fairly easily instinctually point out that something is wrong but not why. Suffice it to say that I am neither a linguist nor an english teacher, so I have no clue what english grammar rule it violates but the newsweek one doesn't. —
FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (
talk) 19:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- So you are saying that if I wrote "rules intended to ensure that" instead of "stipulations intended to ensure that", it would be correct?
TheUzbek (
talk) 19:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- No. I am saying that I am simply unable to explain this to you. Apologies. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) ( talk) 19:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- So you are saying that if I wrote "rules intended to ensure that" instead of "stipulations intended to ensure that", it would be correct?
TheUzbek (
talk) 19:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- An interesting quirk of the human brain is that when one is raised with a particular language, one can fairly easily instinctually point out that something is wrong but not why. Suffice it to say that I am neither a linguist nor an english teacher, so I have no clue what english grammar rule it violates but the newsweek one doesn't. —
FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (
talk) 19:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have nothing against these changes; English is more wordy than my native language! However, are these sentences grammatically incorrect? I would not think so, especially the second one on Stankovic. For instance, this article writes, "
these rules intended", Newsweek "
these rules intended to limit casualties" My point here is that there is a difference between grammatically incorrect and improving the flow of the sentence. I agree that "one had to already be" is correct, however! :)
TheUzbek (
talk) 18:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- In regards to the specific examples I cited, I would correct them as such: "To be eligible for election to the presidency, one had to already be a member of the LCY Central Committee" and "According to scholar Slobodan Stanković, these stipulations were intended to ensure that the president and secretary supervised each other"—
FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (
talk) 18:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- B. It complies with the
manual of style guidelines for
lead sections,
layout,
words to watch,
fiction, and
list incorporation:
- Seems good but apart from the strict interperetation of this criterion, the article contains multiple redlinks of questionable notability, mainly
Statute of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia,
Commission for the Reorganisation and Further Development of the LCY and
Rules of Procedure on the Organisation and Activity of the Presidency of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia. Consider going back and determining which are truly notable. (IMO the redlinks for the congressional sessions are backed up by precedent as some already have articles.)
- My answer is that these are notable in themselves. See, for instance,
Rules of the Workers' Party of Korea and
Constitution of the Chinese Communist Party. My aim is to create articles for these regulations.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TheUzbek (
talk •
contribs)
- Fair enough. I withdraw my objections.— FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) ( talk) 16:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- My answer is that these are notable in themselves. See, for instance,
Rules of the Workers' Party of Korea and
Constitution of the Chinese Communist Party. My aim is to create articles for these regulations.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TheUzbek (
talk •
contribs)
- + Doesn't these sentences in the lead clearly state that the presidency is an organ/political body, not an office? I'll try to clarify more, but it states that each branch was represented with a member and that the LCY president was an ex officio member of this organ: "At the apex of this system was the presidency. This system was institutionally reformed after the purge of Josip Broz Tito's long-standing heir apparent Aleksandar Ranković and replaced with a system of equal representation of the constitutive branches of the LCY in its presidency. From 1969 onwards, each republican LC branch had two representatives and one ex officio member, each autonomous province one representative and one ex officio member and the League of Communists Organisation in the Yugoslav People's Army had one ex officio member. In this system, Tito, the LCY leader from 1939 to his death on 4 May 1980, was the only member of the presidency who was not elected to represent a constitutive branch of the LCY, and was an ex officio member through holding the office of president of the LCY Central Committee. Upon his death, the LCY presidency was abolished and replaced by the office of president of the Presidency of the LCY Central Committee. Officeholders were limited to one-year terms, and the offices rotated annually between the LCY's constitutive branches. This was a system of collective leadership, and the presidency president had to work with the secretary of the Presidency of the LCY Central Committee, which had a two-year term limit and also rotated between the LCY's constitutive branches.
- "
TheUzbek (
talk) 17:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- In regards to the Presidency, I am simply suggesting that you make it clearer to the reader that the article's subject, the
Presidency of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia (the body) is distinct from the office of its leader, the
President of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia (the office) as they both have confusingly similar names. —
FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (
talk) 18:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Aha now I understand what you mean! TheUzbek ( talk) 18:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Added this sentence to the lead; "The LCY president presided over the work of the presidency and, together with the presidency's secretary, set the agenda and organised its sessions." TheUzbek ( talk) 18:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- In regards to the Presidency, I am simply suggesting that you make it clearer to the reader that the article's subject, the
Presidency of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia (the body) is distinct from the office of its leader, the
President of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia (the office) as they both have confusingly similar names. —
FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (
talk) 18:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Seems good but apart from the strict interperetation of this criterion, the article contains multiple redlinks of questionable notability, mainly
Statute of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia,
Commission for the Reorganisation and Further Development of the LCY and
Rules of Procedure on the Organisation and Activity of the Presidency of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia. Consider going back and determining which are truly notable. (IMO the redlinks for the congressional sessions are backed up by precedent as some already have articles.)
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it
verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline:
- B.
Reliable sources are
cited inline. All content that
could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- C. It contains
no original research:
- D. It contains no
copyright violations nor
plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the
main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays
focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see
summary style):
- A. It addresses the
main aspects of the topic:
- Is it
neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by
images?
- A. Images are
tagged with their
copyright status, and
valid non-free use rationales are provided for
non-free content:
- B. Images are
relevant to the topic, and have
suitable captions:
- A. Images are
tagged with their
copyright status, and
valid non-free use rationales are provided for
non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- The article looks good to me with the exception of the need for some trivial copyediting. I will put this review on hold for a period of 7 days. I will put a cleanup tag on the article and post it to
WP:Cleanup. At such time that the grammar and clairity issues are fixed, I will immediately pass it.—
FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (
talk) 19:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- OK then, but I am surprised that you added a banner saying it is poorly written while you can mention only two grammatical errors, of which one is probably not an error. But I guess I have to accept this.
TheUzbek (
talk) 19:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- I will be offline for about 5-7 hrs. When I am back I will reread the article and reconsider. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) ( talk) 20:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- For the record though, cleanup tags are not an attack or an indictment of your work. Their purpose is to alert other editors to work that needs doing, and as you yourself said you are not a native english speaker and so I have taken these steps to alert other editors to get them to help with copyediting. —
FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (
talk) 20:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- My point here is one of clarity. The way you've communicated and the examples you have given have not convinced me that the article is that "off". I have, however, read the text and done some copyediting myself. There were some mistakes, especially in the first section, but I could not uncover anything substantial. I'm not taking it personally, but this is the first time on WP I've been told my writing is not good enough, which is fair, but then I would have liked more substantial examples to understand what those errors were so that I could learn from them and improve. As for the article getting a copyedit by other users, I'm all for it!
TheUzbek (
talk) 20:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- In my opinion the article is only marginally non compliant with criteria, so under WP:GAN/I#R3 Part 3, so I will fix any issues that I see as I go. The hold status is just a formality as I will be offline until tonight. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) ( talk) 20:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- I apologize for the lack of clarity, but I honestly don't know how to communicate the issues with the article other than fixing them myself, (which is a problem on my part and not yours). So I will fix the issues that I see myself in a few hours and pass the nomination. Expect an update at around 04:00 UTC — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) ( talk) 20:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- The formalisation of the party's political structure was not consolidated in the pre-1948 years. I am having trouble understanding this sentence. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) ( talk) 01:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Other than that, I have fixed all other issues.
If you can rewrite this sentence,consider the nomination passed. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) ( talk) 02:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC) - I took my best guess at rewording the sentence. If I got it wrong feel free to correct me. Passed—
FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (
talk) 06:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Changed it to: "Until 1948, informal norms often trumped formal decision-making institutions, which remained weak and underdeveloped." Good?
TheUzbek (
talk) 07:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yup! Congrats and good work! — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) ( talk) 07:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Changed it to: "Until 1948, informal norms often trumped formal decision-making institutions, which remained weak and underdeveloped." Good?
TheUzbek (
talk) 07:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- My point here is one of clarity. The way you've communicated and the examples you have given have not convinced me that the article is that "off". I have, however, read the text and done some copyediting myself. There were some mistakes, especially in the first section, but I could not uncover anything substantial. I'm not taking it personally, but this is the first time on WP I've been told my writing is not good enough, which is fair, but then I would have liked more substantial examples to understand what those errors were so that I could learn from them and improve. As for the article getting a copyedit by other users, I'm all for it!
TheUzbek (
talk) 20:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- OK then, but I am surprised that you added a banner saying it is poorly written while you can mention only two grammatical errors, of which one is probably not an error. But I guess I have to accept this.
TheUzbek (
talk) 19:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- The article looks good to me with the exception of the need for some trivial copyediting. I will put this review on hold for a period of 7 days. I will put a cleanup tag on the article and post it to
WP:Cleanup. At such time that the grammar and clairity issues are fixed, I will immediately pass it.—
FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (
talk) 19:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail: