Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Main Discussion Nominations Reassessment Instructions Criteria Report Help Desk

Review shopping[edit]

STATicVapor seems to be review SHOPPING. At Talk:My Nigga/GA1, I expressed highly important problems with the article. The nominator has cast aside my review and renominated as if it had no merit. I admit that I like Hip hop/R&B music and know Wikipedia policies, but am not necessarily the best WP:SONGS reviewer. The reviewer is hiding behind the fact that the song is a Hip Hop song with hard sources to find. I have reviewed hip hop songs that have details that I am saying are missing here. I am the current reviewer at Talk:Soldier (Destiny's Child song)/GA1‎, which is shaping up nicely. Notice how the research at "Soldier" puts "My Nigga" to shame. Sometimes, I push a bit hard for certain things, but I think I am stating reasonable objections in my GA1 review. I do not think the song should be renominated without any problems raised. The nominator should either apply at WP:GAR or revise the article, or give up on promotion, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Overwriting the old review was entirely inappropriate. Since this is a discussion about a user, though, have you notified him at all (on his talk page or the one in question)? 23W 06:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
He is pinged above. I just posted at Talk:My Nigga.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
What is the problem with wanting a different editor's review, rather then go through the difficult WP:GAR review process. It is clear, at least from my wide experience in music GA reviews, that TonyTheTiger's review was completely inappropriate. They only complained about what they believed should be in the article, that was not. Things like explaining why the radio plays an edited version of the song that uses the word "hitta" rather than an explicit word "n---a", are just not important or N. You cannot expect to have something in the article that is not covered in depth in reliable sources, since they also do not deem it notable. TonyTheTiger's review hardly addressed the article content at all, he/she did not even give a detailed review of the article, they just ran off their ludicrous complaints and failed the review. He/she also chose to not respond to my comment on the GA review page, while continuing to edit elsewhere, even though I pinged them, so they would be notified. Due to the unsuitable behavior and review by TonyTheTiger, I just wanted a more experienced editor. I was in no way review shopping, I have not asked anyone to review. STATic message me! 16:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand why you think version content is unencyclopedic. Read Fuck_You_(CeeLo_Green_song)#Versions. No one watches reviews for comments made 4 days after they have failed them. I had unwatched the conversation after I failed it. In terms of "What is the problem with wanting a different editor's review", it is against policy to "not like the review" and want a new one. It is your responsibility to prove it was a bad review at WP:GAR or address the concerns before renominating. That is longstanding WP policy.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
You most certainly should watch for comments if you wish to review articles for GA, and again I clearly pinged you, so you saw that I commented and you ignored it. According to what policy? Your concerns were not relevant to WP:GA, so your review was invalid. There is nothing in the review relevant to address, so might as well drop this and stop being so dramatic Tony. The article deserves a review from someone familiar with WP:SONG and someone who knows how to review articles for GA status. STATic message me! 19:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I was never pinged. I am looking at my notifications right now and have scrolled all the way down to July 17 and your attempt to ping me is not in the results. So I did not ignore you. You need to figure out how to ping people. That aside, you need to learn the rules at WP:GAN. You can either withdraw your renomination or I can do it for you. Your choices are 1. WP:GAR, 2. Address the concerns, 3. Give up. There is no option to ignore a review and renominate. Would you like to withdraw your nomination or have me do it?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment There is a policy at WP:GAR that you can renominate a disagreeable GAN fail after some time. It is not clear how long this has to be, but I would think 6 months or a year is probably about right. I have never heard of a specific length of time to wait. Typically, it is expected that in the wait time the article undergoes some changes. The more an article has changed, the less important the wait is. Alternatively, if another editor wants to renominate, the wait time would probably be fairly short. My interpretation of the wait policy would be something like 6 months if the article has changed or a different nominator wants to nominate it and about a year otherwise. I don't think the intention was to make it easier to wait than go through a GAR, which takes at least 8-10 weeks. If you have made changes that largely address the concerns given as the reason for the fail, you can renominate immediately.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
P.S. I disagreed with a 12 January 2014 fail of Freedom from Want (painting) and took it to WP:GAR but did not prevail on 19 April 2014 (14 weeks later). However, the interaction at GAR led to such significant changes to the article, that I was able to renominate at GAN immediately without issue. It passed at GAN on 10 June 2014‎ and at WP:FAC yesterday. I would strongly suggest a GAR, where you are likely to get a lot of feedback about the article if there are substantive issues. You may also get the feedback that my review was total rubbish with no valid concerns there. GAR is actually a very good process for an article like this. I have been on the winning and losing end of GAR discussions as both a nominator and reviewer several times. However, in all cases, I have learned a lot about the article through the process. If you really want to improve the quality of the article to a GAN level, I would start at GAR. It is far more likely to help you improve the article or get it promoted than waiting.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I do know how to ping, just because you choose to lie is not my problem. As for your various "choices" you want to give me, I do not have to choose from any of them. You are not an administrator and you have zero authority over me, so quit acting like it, it is quite hilarious at times. Just let someone else review it, I see no problem in it and most users wouldn't. That is mainly because your review had nothing to do with the criteria for WP:GA, it was hardly a review at all. If you do not know how to review articles for GA do not do it, you make editing life more difficult for others. I do not think there is this point in the policy, Bangerz was nominated and reviewed three times within a month. I could compare its first two reviews to yours [1], [2], at least that article's first one actually addressed the quality and content of the article. Yours did not at all. No need for GAR, the article is ready for GA status, there are not many improvements to be made. STATic message me! 15:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Bangerz/GA1 is nothing like my review. I would have stood by the nominator at WP:GAR on that one as an inadequate review. My review was about the breadth and depth of the article which is WP:WIAGA item 3. Your article badly fails WIAGA. Furthermore, I was not pinged and your attempt at pining me does not show in my notifications.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I was not trying to hide the review per se, I knew that any additionally reviewer would see that review. At WP:AN#Review Shopping., the consensus seems to be that the review was inappropriate and the reasons for the quick fail were invalid. Judging by this user's interactions with me, I strongly believe that they would not be able to perform a neutral review, on top of their incomprehension of the GA criteria. STATic message me! 02:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The two people there don't make a consensus when one of them seems to be unfamiliar with WP:GAN. I think the counts here of 1 in favor and 1 against is where the tally should come from. We are not getting to a consensus via informal discussions. You really should have started a formal WP:GAR. If necessary, I am more than capable of performing a neutral GAN review. I don't think it makes much sense for you to be accusing someone who has been involved in about 700 GAN discussions that they are unfamiliar with GAN. I still think the standard procedure of contesting a GAN through a formal GAR is the proper procedure. You are forcing people like Black Kite who appears to have been involved in only a handful of GAN discussions to resolve a contentious GAN. WP:GAR is where people who have seen hundreds and thousands of GAN discussions convene to resolve contentious GANs. You should seek the standard resolution process there.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The failed GA only mentions negative points, without giving any space of time to the author/nominator to fix the points mentioned. Also some of the points, like missing images, are not a reason to fail an article. Since I think this process needs to be simple, I think the article should not be stopped from being reviewed again. If more then 1 person finds objections we can always decide on a different course of action. But right now, I think this should not be a problem to anyone. Considering the use of words like "lie", "hide the review" and "review was inappropriate", I think the trust between the cooperating parties has taken a hit and a change of reviewer may be for the best. -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The "lie" is not about the article. It was about him being certain I had ignored a ping that I claimed I had never gotten. It turns out that he did not correctly ping me. Actually, "hide the review" that is again him not knowing that GA discussions don't get expunged if you don't like them. "Review being inappropriate", that one may be on me if consensus feels that way. However, if you look at any discussion that needs third party resolution on wikipedia, you can probably find 3 words and phrases that make it look like the two parties should never talk again. If the review should resume, I can handle it. If the review needs to be evaluated at GAR, I can handle it. If the review stands, I can handle it. If the review needs to be excised from the history of wikipedia, I can handle it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • As far as I can see you both did everything with the best intentions. Noone lied, I agree that the ping was incorrect, and noone tried to hide anything, that was inexperience. I am pretty sure Tony is completely neutral and can handle it, but I don't think he should. Judging by the words used, the review came across hard, even if not intended, especially if you tell someone it is a fail and they have no opportunity to reply. Ofcourse that is something easily fixed by talking. Yet, it might be more appreciated by STATicVapor, if a second review was not done by the same person. -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 07:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Whatever consensus says. It is not normal to go to a second reviewer because the nominator doesn't like the first, but whatever consensus is I will abide by.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop trying to twist and turn the facts of the matter Tony. Black Kite suggested that the review may need to be deleted at WP:AN, I was not trying to expunge the review at all. I just brought it up as a possible result in discussion. Multiple users have agreed that the review was inappropriate here and at WP:AN, so just give it up and let someone else review it. This is not at all about me "not liking it", the review was inappropriate and you show a lack of understanding the GA criteria. @Taketa: The ping was not incorrect, I did it in the exact same way I just pinged you. Thank you for agreeing that a second review should be done by a different person though, I do not believe Tony can be neutral at all with this review after all this. Hell, I like this idea of never talking to this user again, I feel like he/she acted completely uncivil with me from the beginning and that sure did not get better at all. STATic message me! 07:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
STATicVapor, it seems that you did not learn that this is not a valid ping because pings don't work when they are not in the same edit as the signature. I hope you are paying attention. In terms of consensus, it seems that you are getting the opinions of the least experienced Good article writers on WP. I have been involved in about 700 WP:GANs (over 300 as the reviewer) and never been removed from a review. I am well aware of what the WP:WIAGA are. So far you have the opinions of Black Kite who has only a handful of GA credits and Taketa who seems to have recently made his first nomination. No one with any GA experience seems to think you are suppose to be allowed to cry until you get a new reviewer. I am hoping some people with some GA experience could contribute to the discussion. the following are among the most active GAN editors: Eric Corbett, Geometry guy, Hahc21, Wizardman, EyeSerene, FunkMonk, BlueMoonset, WhatamIdoing, Gary, ChrisGualtieri, Gen. Quon, Rodw, Miyagawa, Figureskatingfan, SilkTork, Sasata, Cwmhiraeth, Hurricanehink, 12george1, Tomobe03, Sven Manguard, The Rambling Man, Dom497, Anotherclown, Sturmvogel 66. Since you have chosen not to pursue a WP:GAR, all your support is from inexperienced editors. I am hoping that experienced editors will chime in about crying until you get a new reviewer.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
That is called canvassing, a big no no. I do not understand why you would bother dozens of your select editors, just to prove a point. Just give it up, and let your life go on. Your constant pushing of this and uncivilness is making me believe more, and more that you are not going to be a neutral reviewer of the article. Multiple editors have supported it receiving a new reviewer and I do not know what your problem is with that happening. Every person that has commented here, or at the WP:AN thread has said that your reasons for a quick fail were not valid per the GA criteria. Including @Mark Miller:, and the aforementioned editors you deem to label "inexperienced". Articles are renominated after failing all the time and the article has been changed since then. Even some of your 'concerns' were addressed. STATic message me! 14:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Read CANVASS. It says "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion". So far you have two extremely inexperienced GAN participants as your primary supporters. They are both suggesting that we do something that is not normally done. I am not trying to prove a point, I am trying to bring the voice of reason (people with experience) to the issue. Black Kite and Taketa combine for about 5 GAN reviews from what I can tell and they are your primary backers for getting a new review. 23W said wiping out the old review was wrong and Mark Miller suggested resuming the review.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Quick reply: It's okay to re-list, even for silly problems. A good reviewer will look at the old review; a lax review can be handled through GAR later if necessary. On the merits, if sources do not exist for material that a reader would reasonably expect to find in an encyclopedia article (e.g., that there are multiple versions and why), then the subject simply cannot reach GA status yet. Not every subject is capable of meeting the criteria. "I wrote everything I could find" is not the same as "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". Nominations for modern songs are chronically troubled by this requirement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: I am glad you agree another person should be allowed to review. The thing is, there are not multiple versions. There is a clean version that is played on radio just like every other song played on the radio. Why would this need to be covered in the article? There is nothing about that in WP:SONG. If there were remixes that would obviously need to be covered. Does the article really need to say, there is a clean version of the song that replaces that word "nigga" with "hitta"? It is trivial, it is not a Good Article criteria and it is not an expectation per WP:SONG. STATic message me! 15:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
One "clean version" plus one "not-clean version" equals more than one. That means that there actually are "multiple versions" of the song, despite your denial here.
I don't care what WP:SONG says. WikiProject Song is not mentioned in the WP:GACR. I only care what's written in the good article criteria. It happens that providing a (reasonably) complete description of the subject actually is a good article criteria. Reasonable people may disagree about whether this particular bowdlerization is is part of a complete description. I think it is; Tony thinks it is; you think it's not. That's okay: we don't have to agree. Tony is fully justified in failing the article over this omission, because it is the reviewer's job to fail an article if the reviewer (not the nominator, other editors at the article, and/or various bystanders) believes it to be missing significant information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I happen to agree with Tony. I have opposed FAC's for the same reason that he failed the article, in that I thought it wasn't comprehensive enough. It is his prerogative to fail it if he legitimately believes it shouldn't be a GA. However, if the person who wrote the article thought it was in question, they could have asked for a second review or simply to GAN it again. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
There is an existing parameter for requesting second opinions during reviews. I don't see why the review would have to be started over for this. FunkMonk (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I am not going to agree or disagree with the parties over the content. I will say that the review was quick declined and should not have been. Even if you did a short review allowing a few changes to see how well the nominator complied, it should have been given a chance as there were no real quick fail criteria fulfilled. However, since the nominating editor is requesting a knew reviewer, that is a different animal. Let me check something.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Tony is a respected GA reviewer and nominator. He can be frustrating, but he should not be forced to give a review to an article he does not feel inclined to review, nor should the nominator be forced to work with an editor they feel has been unfair. The thread here was started by Tony, not Static and was about review shopping because Static reported the review and QF at AN. To Tony this looked like the nominator was shopping for a reviewer. Unfortunately I see no consensus here that supports that. Some agree that Tony should continue and others that he should step back. This is not a matter for consensus. This is up to the two editors. If Tony decides to continue the review in good faith, that is his option and can really only be removed if he is blatantly disregarding policy or being uncivil. But we have other factors here including what Tony, himself says above: "I do not think the song should be renominated without any problems raised.". OK, but Tony did raise the problems. The statement only says renominated before problems raised so...technically, Tony himself adds to a consensus that, as long as the concerns are "raised" before the next nomination. These issues have now been pointed out or raised for discussion. This seems to indicate that Tony feels (even without the tongue in check push over the technical wording) that the article should be renominated not so much that he wants to do it. Per the FAQ for GA:

The editors at the article disagree with the reviewer. Can we request that another reviewer take over?
If your GAN experience has not been good or if you disagree with the reviewer's decisions, then you can renominate the article (for a different reviewer) or request a community reassessment. You might also like to read What the Good article criteria are not.

Static is asking for another reviewer. To do so they simply need to renominate the page and another editor can then pick it up. I see no reasoning to object to the article being renominated. There are no limits to how soon an article can be renominated and the FAQ states this to be an option for this very purpose. If the reviewer is willing to re-open and return to reviewing and the nominator is willing, that is the still, best option. Static, show assumption of good faith and let Tony help you imrove the article, or just renominate it for a second/different reviewer.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@Mark Miller: Actually, Tony started the AN thread, I still do not even know what he meant by review shopping. So the FAQ says it all, the GAN experience was not been good and I certainly disagreed with the reviewer's decisions, so it is proper for the article to be renominated for a different reviewer. So case closed. After the constant uncivilness and improper GAN, I would like a new reviewer and it has already been renominated. That is what started this thread, Tony got mad that I renominated it. STATic message me! 21:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


The instructions don't seem to mention whether articles about occurrring events should be quickfailed due to inherent lack of stability. I just saw 2014 West Africa Ebola virus outbreak is nominated, but to me, that is a quickfail, since the issue is not played out at all. Maybe the instructions should be made clearer on this? FunkMonk (talk) 10:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

If the article is not stable, a quick decline is appropriate, regardless of whether it is an "occurring event" or not. The fact that it is an ongoing event is subject to instability and that should be enough for the decline as was the case for such articles as Occupy Wall Street when it was nominated and was not stable enough for a review because it was ongoing and editors were reverting over content.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I've quickfailed it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't come up very often, compared to movies and other pop culture, so we haven't needed to specify that point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Missing review counts at WP:GAN[edit]

Why do half of the nominators at WP:GAN have no review count next to their name? Many are experienced reviewers.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup[edit]

We are proposing a competition that could finally put a dent into this massive backlog. Click here for details (and use the talk page there to leave your opinion).--Dom497 (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Nominator reviewing his/her own nominations[edit]

It appears that Historian7 has several open nominations in which he/she is reviewing his/her own submission regarding Ancient Rome. I am not sure if he/she has already passed some articles. Although the apparent review counts suggest that these are his/her first such submission, I want someone to look into this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Tony, I think this is someone unclear on the process. I've posted a note to Historian7's talk page, and will be marking the four review pages for deletion, as a nominator is not allowed to create these pages by DYK rules. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

PapaJeckloy's problematic reviews[edit]

Today, PapaJeckloy closed two reviews: Talk:Siouxsie Sioux/GA1 and Talk:Adderall/GA1. Both are highly problematic.

First, PapaJeckloy has problems with English prose. His DYK nomination of Brod Pete ran into issues because of this, and after his claiming to have fixed all issues in half a dozen copyedits, the prose was still pretty bad (see Template:Did you know nominations/Brod Pete). GOCE was called in to improve the prose.

Second, he is involved in an ongoing sockpuppet investigation that I started yesterday after someone complained to my talk page: the checkuser has said There is more that meets the eye to this case and requires careful analysis I can't provide right now, which is worrying.

Siouxsie Sioux was the oldest nomination when PapaJeckloy took it for review, and I have put it back in the queue with its original submission date, so it doesn't suffer another half-year wait.

The review for Adderall, an extremely complex scientific article, was opened at 13:34 today with the note "Will review this one later", and was passed at 13:42, eight minutes later. It is not possible to read the article in that time (two minutes of which were spent cleaning up the review formatting), much less review it. My considered opinion is that the review should be completely reversed and the nomination put back in the queue; I'm not sure how to do that once the review has been completed, unless it involves deleting the review page and reverting all related edits, including the bot's on the article's talk page.

Under the circumstances, I think PapaJeckloy should be blocked from reviewing GANs for the present, as he is being disruptive to the process here. Perhaps a mentorship might be in order, assuming he comes through the sock investigation unscathed. Thoughts for going forward? BlueMoonset (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think blocking is necessary; he's never going to learn and will never want to contribute further if that happens. Rather, he should be given examples of what to look out for and a request to spend more time on his reviews as GAN is a serious process. I myself failed an article way back in 2008 mainly for being too short, which I feel bad about in retrospect as it was probably fine; I just didn't understand the criteria. (I am now, and have been for years, a competent GAN reviewer.) Tezero (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The SPI checkuser has reported back and said the accounts were "Likely" sockpuppets, though not "Confirmed". If not a block, Tezero, then given his actions on those two GAN closures I'd want him to have a mentor who would, at least for the next several, have to agree to the final disposition of a review. But, frankly, his English skills aren't up to the task of determining "well written", and I don't see that changing: if you don't have adequate skills in the language, how can you ever determine with any accuracy whether any article qualifies as a GA? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Surely there's another way, though, BlueMoonset; "we don't want you around" isn't a good message to send. I would support adding a mentor/confirmer, at least for prose clarity. If the accounts are indeed socks, have they been used abusively? Tezero (talk) 04:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The connections would not be disclosed if they were not used abusively. --Rschen7754 04:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Tezero, the socks each approved one of PapaJeckloy's DYK nominations: in other words, it's likely he approved his own nominations twice, using undisclosed alternate accounts. That's certainly abuse of the DYK process. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh. Yes, it is, and this is why I recently changed my mind on not thinking deceptive sockpuppetry is harmful. I don't think that necessarily affects the GAN process, as there appears to be no evidence of such activity yet, but I do think he should be temp-banned from DYK and given a stern talking-to if he hasn't already. Tezero (talk) 06:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • His latest review at Talk:Grand Slam (PBA)/GA1 is marginally better, but since he noted no issues to fix aside from something that's not a GA requirement, I'm still not convinced he's actually reading the articles. Wizardman 15:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Wizardman, have you actually read the article? Just taking a quick look, the first sentence in the "1976 Crispa Redmanizers" is confusing and grammatically unsound; I found a number of additional prose problems just in that one paragraph. I think PapaJeckloy has demonstrated his lack of competence as a GA reviewer (18 minutes from open to write-up with nothing found: no misspellings, no grammar issues, nada), and if allowed to continue without some kind of oversight will indeed do harm to GAN. I'm posting to the new review to point out some issues, but absent consensus here about oversight, he's free to ignore me since he opened the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Precisely what I'm saying; if he doesn't get much better at reviewing quickly I'm just going to start deleting them as they pop up. The fact that he deleted the concerns on the talk page without responding speaks volumes. Wizardman 15:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Wizardman. I'll leave it to you, then. You might want to start with the Adderall listing; I did put Siouxsie Sue back in the nominations with its original submission date intact, and am strongly thinking of removing the FailedGA template from that article's talk page, unless you think that's a bad idea. BTW, do you do email from here? (I don't.) If so, a note to Dvandersluis on StatisticianBot's weeks-long hiatus would be welcome; we haven't had a GAN report since August 15. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I undid the Adderall one, but now I'm being reverted. I don't have the patience to tackle multiple people on the same front. This is why there's a difference between assuming good faith and assuming blind faith; if we do the latter then we'd have hundreds of crap reviews passing. Wizardman 17:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
@Wizardman: It'd help if you {{ping}} nominators or leave an edit summary when you do this so that they (or in this case, I) don't have to search for an explanation. I'm not going to re-revert you, but as I've said earlier, reverting the article isn't really the correct way to go about this issue. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 17:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree there's an issue with the review. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 17:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
As one of the main contributors of the Grand Slam (PBA) article, I'm in favor of deleting the GA review created by PapaJeckloy. He made several questionable DYK reviews (even rejecting this one just because of a simple technicality) before he reviewed the Grand Slam article. -WayKurat (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
That article was nominated nine days after being created, not the required seven (actually, I thought it was five). Extending the requirement is generous, but I didn't know it was required. Why not just make nine days official, then? Tezero (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Tezero, consensus at DYK was to move from five to seven days as the "new" period a few months ago. We tend to give a bit of leniency to people who are nominating their own articles for the first time if they're a few days late, as was the case here. I've posted as such to the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it'd be fine to revert and delete the review; my concern with reverting and leaving the review as an existing page without going through GAR is that it results in a nonsensical article history. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 17:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)