Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I want a peer review of this article before nominating it for next featured article. It has been improved upon significantly and meets the featured article criteria. The previous nomination of this article for FAC criteria didn't recieved much responce. I want to know concerns of editors and hope that the article will get more support in the next nomination.
Thanks, Rahul Jain ( talk) 11:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I strongly recommend this article NOT be submitted for FAR again until it passes GAR. I do not think it is very near FA quality and we are likely to get more comments and help if we are not overreaching. It only takes a couple of minutes to find enough problems to fail FAR and fixing those few problems doesn't mean we'll have fixed everything that's not up to snuff for FA. On the other hand, a GAR would probably be more thorough and be of greater benefit for the article.
I suggest viewing the GAR and FAR review process as a way to improve the article rather than as a form of external validation.
Generally, this is an intermediate quality article. A lot of the problems I encountered are minor but numerous and in total they prevent it from earning a higher rating.
First, let's address these issues and then we can revisit this section for more detailed review.
However, I can't help but comment:
Joja lozzo 01:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I second the comments expressed by Jojalozzo that this should go to GA review before FA. It will probably pass the former, but not the latter at this current stage. One thing in particular that strikes me is the introduction; it does not sufficiently summarise the rest of the article. Still, a lot of good work has gone into this, and those responsible should be congratulated. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 14:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I want a peer review of this article before nominating it for next featured article. It has been improved upon significantly and meets the featured article criteria. The previous nomination of this article for FAC criteria didn't recieved much responce. I want to know concerns of editors and hope that the article will get more support in the next nomination.
Thanks, Rahul Jain ( talk) 11:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I strongly recommend this article NOT be submitted for FAR again until it passes GAR. I do not think it is very near FA quality and we are likely to get more comments and help if we are not overreaching. It only takes a couple of minutes to find enough problems to fail FAR and fixing those few problems doesn't mean we'll have fixed everything that's not up to snuff for FA. On the other hand, a GAR would probably be more thorough and be of greater benefit for the article.
I suggest viewing the GAR and FAR review process as a way to improve the article rather than as a form of external validation.
Generally, this is an intermediate quality article. A lot of the problems I encountered are minor but numerous and in total they prevent it from earning a higher rating.
First, let's address these issues and then we can revisit this section for more detailed review.
However, I can't help but comment:
Joja lozzo 01:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I second the comments expressed by Jojalozzo that this should go to GA review before FA. It will probably pass the former, but not the latter at this current stage. One thing in particular that strikes me is the introduction; it does not sufficiently summarise the rest of the article. Still, a lot of good work has gone into this, and those responsible should be congratulated. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 14:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)