Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article is currently a Good Article, but I'm very concerned about the article's stability, the controversy of the topic, and the article's balance. I intend to have the article's GA status reviewed, but I don't want to notify too many editors. Therefore, I am requesting the peer review here instead of GA reassessment. As for me, I was uninvolved in the content, but involving in the titling. You can make suggestions to relevant editors who did hard work to have the article promoted to GA. I am abstaining from this discussion, but this should not affect the peer review.
Thanks, George Ho ( talk) 02:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Note: The statement "I intend to have the article's GA status reviewed, but I don't want to notify too many editors" suggests a private agenda, and is completely out of order. Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but this does not seem to a be a valid PR request. Brianboulton ( talk) 00:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article is currently a Good Article, but I'm very concerned about the article's stability, the controversy of the topic, and the article's balance. I intend to have the article's GA status reviewed, but I don't want to notify too many editors. Therefore, I am requesting the peer review here instead of GA reassessment. As for me, I was uninvolved in the content, but involving in the titling. You can make suggestions to relevant editors who did hard work to have the article promoted to GA. I am abstaining from this discussion, but this should not affect the peer review.
Thanks, George Ho ( talk) 02:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Note: The statement "I intend to have the article's GA status reviewed, but I don't want to notify too many editors" suggests a private agenda, and is completely out of order. Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but this does not seem to a be a valid PR request. Brianboulton ( talk) 00:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)