User talk:Prhartcom

Welcome! Please feel free to leave me a comment on any subject below. I look forward to replying to you. —Prhartcom

File:Verifiability and Neutral point of view (Common Craft)-en.ogv

A video showing the basics of Wikipedia's verifiability and neutral point of view policies.

Happy New Year Prhartcom!

Happy New Year, Prhartcom! Have a prosperous, productive, and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. ツ Have a great New Year in 2016! ツ With kind regards; Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 17:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pdebee, it's good to hear from you again! Thank-you for the best wishes, a Happy New Year to you as well! —Prhartcom (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year! Have a prosperous, productive, and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! --Tenebrae (talk)

Hey Tenebrae, thanks for this, it's great to hear from you; Happy New Year to you also! —Prhartcom (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Wishbringer screenshot.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wishbringer screenshot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Marchjuly (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC) -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Zork screenshot.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Zork screenshot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Marchjuly (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC) -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Diamond Rio

Yeah, you can help me with the harv references. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi TenPoundHammer, sure, I'd be happy to. I've seen you around for a long time and it's good to be working with you. Did you decide to install the tool? Take a look at the article with it on and you'll see what I mean. You'll never look at Harvard citations the same way again. I'm over at the article now. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Left you a message re: Tharkay

Thanks, Prhart..., appreciate your irony: "not notable" is the aim of anonymous writing; glad to see I've acheived that much~--Shastakath (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC) Here; [My Tharkay edit] Greetings :-)

Tutorial re: knee-jerk rejection of Tintin in Tibet improvements

Hi Phartcom, I see you have reverted my edits on Tintin in Tibet. Pity. I know you are sincere because I have seen this knee-jerk behaviour before in dozens of inexperienced students who have communication problems. The Tintin article in those changed passages is unintelligible. And because you know the story well, and are proud of your version (which is quite a good basis, actually) you probably genuinely do not realise why there is a problem. Writing intelligibly is something me and you and most others have to learn by years of experience, it hardly comes naturally to anybody. Except if your name is Shakespeare or Daniel Defoe.

But there is a short cut which I found handy when I was younger, and which you can apply immediately - ask a friend to read both versions, first yours then mine, and keep your mouth tightly shut while he/she is reading the two versions. And then ask which of the two is clearer. You will then berate your friend, and then after about 48 hours to 2 weeks you will change your mind and reinstall my version. And as you get older, this period of decision time shortens to minutes. And that is when you become a really good editor and team player. Bonne chance, mon ami. I shall not return to this subject, so do not trouble yourself replying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.120.95.90 (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

80.120.95.90, I didn't revert them, I revised them, keeping at least half of what you added. I thought you would be pleased, actually. As for your suggestion, I have already had many dozen editors critique the article, since it has been through many formal reviews. Believe me, you are not the first. If you'd like to explain exactly why certain edits of yours are superior, feel free to do so at the article talk page; I would be interested in having that discussion. By the way, there is much more to the article than just the plot synopsis. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Diamond Rio again

I'm pretty sure I've gotten everything else in your GA nomination. The only thing I'm confused on is your issue over the ACM/CMA awards. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking time to review the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• Your welcome; it was a pleasure learning about the group. Hope to work with you again. Prhartcom (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

New categories on the WP:GAN page

Prhartcom, new subtopics should not be added to the GAN page without both consensus on the talk page and, once that is achieved, coordination with Legoktm, who operates Legobot, so the bot is programmed to handle the categories. That's how we've always done it in the past: proposed subtopics for GAN, discussed, and coordinated with the bot owner.

Even if people use one of the new subtopics you've just added in their GA nominations, the bot won't recognize them, so the nominations will never appear on the GAN page and hence never be reviewed.

Under the circcumstances, you can understand why I'm reverting the addition of these new subtopics immediately, before people see them. If I'd thought you'd be adding categories to the GAN page—you didn't mention this possibility—I would have mentioned this issue sooner. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset. Thanks for your concern, but I believe it is misplaced. Sorry that I didn't mention adding the subcategories to this page; I should have. Of course, other people added subcategories to the GA page a while ago; this is just a reflection of their work, so that answers the consensus issue. The bot still operates without issue until it is enhanced to start using the new subcategories, so that answers the Legobot concern issue (they have to first be on the GAN page before it can be enhanced to use them). I did not remove subcategories; that would indeed break the bot (Note: We have to remove the "Warfare" subcategory after Legobot is enhanced to use the others instead). I am working on further visual enhancements to the GAN page (offline) that will clean it up even more, but they are what we discussed and nothing extravagant.

I would indeed like to get to know the operator of Legobot (I'm a developer in RL). I notice the operator never answered our question for them. Right now, I am simply timing my update to go in between times when the bot is active. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but I disagree with your additions, especially as someone who sees them—the headers show up on the list that everyone sees—might think they are active and receive a rude shock days or weeks later when their edits don't show up in a visible subtopic. However, by WP:BRD, they should not have been reverted, and I'm going to have to insist on them remaining invisible to users. If you insist otherwise, you're welcome to take this to WP:GAN, but please do not add them without consensus. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset, I appreciate your apology and your your respect. I understand that you feel strongly about it, and I get the feeling that you wouldn't want to disagree with me unless it is important. So, you have my attention. Yes, BRD is a good process. Just so you know: My intention is never to set policy or guidelines by myself, my intention is only to cleanly, clearly, and consistently (and boldly) format our good article data in a way that has already been established and to work out any disagreements afterwards. (My other intention is to make you happy, as I consider you the policy authority here at GA.)

I agree that it looks weird with empty subcategories like that, although of course it's only temporary (we need to talk to the operator/developer of Legobot and let them know that an enhancement request for more subcategories is coming). You may be right that the new subcategories could confuse people, although it shouldn't, as those same subcategories are on the GA page. Maybe the question is: Why do we have all those Warfare subcategories on the GA page? Other categories, such as Sports and recreation, go straight from categories to sub-subcategories, skipping subcategories. Maybe that is what should have happened to Warfare. Or conversely, maybe Warfare has it right and we should add subcategories to Sports and recreation. Or maybe it is not our place to make those decisions, but just to implement what others have already decided when they boldly created GA subcategories like that. Certainly the Classical compositions subcategory of Music should be a welcome addition to the GAN page; it has been laughably absent.

A subcategory on the GAN page is certainly also a queue in which we wait for our GAN to be reviewed. More subcategories may mean it is not as far from the bottom of the queue to the top. Maybe some categories have too many subcategories and maybe some have too few, when you look at them as queues.

A decision that has been true from the beginning is as follows: All categories and all subcategories on the GA page are also on the GAN page. Sub-subcategories from the GA page are not on the GAN page however, except (as you wisely insisted) they are mentioned in helpful explanation sentences. Let me know if you disagree with these two statements. If not, then you can see why I'm puzzled: It seems as if you are being inconsistent by stopping me from continuing this valid truth.

Would you do me a favor? Try again to reach the bot providor Legoktm and ask them to consider that subcategories are a natural progression of an expanding encyclopedia and that it may be time once again to add more. When they agree, we can add the subcategories to the GAN page in a coordinated way. Also, please do reply below if you need to retort to anything I said; I'm always happy to hear from smart people. I'll open a topic on WT:GAN soon enough (after I finish reworking all these labor-intensive "include" sentences that you talked me into!) Best, Prhartcom (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I ran out of time today, for which my apologies. I did locate the discussion from the last time we made changes to the GAN page and the bot. It was over three years ago in November 2012, back when we had the GA bot run by Chris S—Chris S later retired and stopped his bot, and Legoktm added the functionality to Legobot three days later—so it appears we haven't yet had a change under Legoktm's watch. The last change involved changing the topic name from "Theatre, film and drama" to "Media and drama" (with a couple of false starts as to what the new topic should be), and adding the Television and Film subtopics; see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 18#Changing Section Headings for the details. (It also refers to an earlier discussion at GA rather than GAN.) I'll try to write up something for the GAN talk page tomorrow: as you can see, there was general discussion on the best thing to do, which I think should happen with the new changes you're proposing. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I think your RfC covers anything I might have posted, so I won't be making such a post after all. I did look back at the history of the subtopics on the GA pages: it looks like Adam Cuerden moved Classical Compositions out of Albums into its own category on his own in mid-2013 (I think if it had been me, I would have put it in the Other subtopic, since it had, and has, comparatively few GAs when stacked up against some of the other "Other" sub-subtopics). And Warfare, when the page was created at GA in March 2012, seems to have started out with the seven subtopics. At GAN, it had been a subtopic called "War and military" under the "History" topic well before then, and wasn't finally moved to its own Warfare section until a year later, in March 2013, but then was created at GAN only with the one topic/subtopic Warfare. I don't know why they didn't include the GA subtopics; maybe they thought the topic didn't need to split into a lot of tiny lists (the entire topic started with 20 nominations). The one topic that could use subtopics, as far as GAN is concerned, is Sports and recreation. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

StatisticianBot

Prhartcom, the changes you made to the WP:GAN page yesterday have affected the StatisticianBot reports. Where the bot used to provide links to the subtopics where articles could be found, it is now providing links to the topic instead. This has affected the /backlog/items pink box on the GAN page. The difference can be seen in this change from earlier today, which modified the links in the /backlog/items light-red box at the top of the GAN page. The same change seems also to have affected the entire GA report page. If you can't figure out which of your edits to WP:GAN has caused this change in behavior, perhaps you could work with the bot owner, Dvandersluis, to identify what the bot is expecting, or to update the bot to work with the changes you've made. As it notes on his talk page, he rarely checks Wikipedia these days, so you'll need to email him to get his attention. It may take him a couple of days to respond, but I've found him to be helpful when we've had issues with the Report page in the past. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh no; I had hoped to not affect a bot. This is my fear come home to roost. I will start work on finding what change affected this immediately; I have some ideas already. Thank-you for catching this and for telling me whom to contact; I will keep you informed regarding this outcome. Note that I have been watching Legobot closely; for example, in addition to handling the GAN page, it is handling the Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Topic lists nicely. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S. BlueMoonset, let's not complicate the RfC I just added with this news. This is a solvable problem and I think I know were to look; I'll keep you informed. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's relevant to the RfC. This is a technical problem; I hope you find the solution soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys, just wanted to let you know that I'm aware of the issue due to @Prhartcom's email, so thanks for that. I short version is that since the headers are now formatted differently, and StatisticianBot doesn't know to look for the new format of headers, it is only reporting on the categories it finds, which are the level 2 headings. Luckily since those were retained, the bot will at least still report something in the meantime. I'm not sure if I'll be able to get to it this week, but I have provided Prhartcom with some instructions on how he might be able to help via email. I have also added a notice to both the top and bottom of User talk:StatisticianBot to keep people aware in case someone tries to report the bug. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 21:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to Dvandersluis and the clear communication between us, and to BlueMoonset who quickly spotted the problem, I believe this issue is now resolved. We'll know when the bot runs again at 8:00 AM UTC (in about eight hours). I simply restored the previous level 3 header format rather than take the time to code and test an enhancement to the bot, which Dvandersluis was kind enough to provide me access to. There wasn't a good enough reason to keep the formatting I had tried. My mistake was assuming all bots would use the "Bot start" identifiers on the page. The other improvements to the page that I have implemented are kept (i.e. clicking on a jump link takes the reader to the level 3 heading rather than to the identically named level 2 heading. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Prhartcom, it looks like your restoration did the trick: the links are once again using the subtopics on the Report page and the backlog/items page. Thank you, and thanks to Daniel Vandersluis. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Prince Aleksandre of Georgia

Hello Prhartcom,

I saw you this article from the GA list. The nominator really got topic banned? I didn't even notice. In any case, would you mind reinstating it? I made some edits to the article myself and im often involved in Georgia-related articles. I'm willing to take over the nominator role over if he actually got topic banned, so that the article may still be reviewed for GA. Is that alright with you? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

LouisAragon, that would be great; I'm glad to hear someone like you with a knowledge of the subject is ready to take over bringing this article to GA. It looks like a high quality article but of course we'll let the future reviewer decide. You must be ready to respond to the reviewer's suggestions to improve the article. Yes, it was unfortunate about the former nominator; take a look at their talk page. I removed this article from consideration for GA and now anyone including yourself may renominate it. It may take several months before someone reviews it. Please read the instructions for nominating an article for GA and you may then nominate it yourself, and it will have your name attached to it. Let me know if you have any questions. Best of luck to you, Prhartcom (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Comics infobox for Tintin characters

Hi Prhartcom. Those comics character infobox appear to have been custom-made specifically for US comics, where dozens of characters are in leagues and alliances and all that stuff. Such parameters don't really make sense in comics like Tintin. Also, linking to a list in an infobox is counter-productive since the whole point of an infobox is to give the info at a glance, isn't it? Consistency is desirable, but not essential on Wikipedia and it's better not to fill parameters just because they exist. Snowy is just a dog who follows his master, he has no "team or affiliation" ! Mezigue (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I have responded at the article talk page. Prhartcom (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

thank you for the tip

Thanks for the tip on the category for religious architecture Good Articles. The Jokhang temple makes much more sense there! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Amazing article

Good work on getting Mary Lou Bruner's profound views into the permanent, never to be erased record. I really had a good laugh reading references. This article could be big as she would be a good fit as Trump's VP pick. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

HappyValleyEditor, if you return to the article (and if you read the section below), you may see from the notice at the top that your thoughts at the linked discussion would be appreciated. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the note.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, here is a source from Russia Today, which shows international notability. I would have added it, but you seem to have a parrticular referencing style and I do not want to mess it up. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you HappyValleyEditor, both for the !vote and for the reference; I have just added it. Don't worry, it's just Harvard referencing using Template:Sfn; you could have just copied the style. Thanks again; I so much appreciate your support! Your !vote pushed it over the edge; it is no longer up for deletion. Feel free to drop by the article and improve it anytime! Prhartcom (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Mary Lou Bruner for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mary Lou Bruner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Lou Bruner until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

And why is that, Bearcat? There are numerous reliable secondary sources reporting on this person including The Washington Post, The New York Times, and John Oliver's Last Week Tonight. The article is still being written, as I am still in the process of adding referenced information from the sources listed in the References section, at which point I expect the article to be 500-1000 words. I can't wait to read your rational for this. Prhartcom (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Candidates do not qualify for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, except in extremely rare circumstances that require a lot more nationalized coverage than has been shown here. Local media have an obligation to cover elections taking place in their own local coverage area, so any sourcing to any newspaper published within Texas counts as WP:ROUTINE and cannot assist in carrying WP:GNG — and the volume of nationalized coverage is not yet large enough or sustained enough to make her anything but a WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

You sound just like the pointy editors who tried and failed (twice) to delete the Kim Davis (county clerk) article, as they made the same wrong arguments. Prhartcom (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: Pepper's ghost

What's your rationale for removing the section on Pinball for modern usages of the Pepper's ghost illusion? Your edit summary says it was "described below", but that was the only mention of pinball in the article. You also mention unsourced additions, but the linked Wikipedia article was sourced. I've even added a second source explicitly referencing Pepper's ghost. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dante Alighieri. My edit summary comment referred to something else I did in the same edit: removed Disney's Haunted Mansion text because it was a repeat of what was described further down in the article. While I was at it, I removed the pinball sentence because it had no reliable source. Feel free to add it back then, with the proper citations (two sources would be ideal). Best, Prhartcom (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Another unsatisfactory GA review

Hi, about six months ago we had a discussion on how to handle a GA review which was in my view inadequate and substandard. Now the same editor, 333-blue, has reviewed the Milos Raonic article and passed it as GA at Talk:Milos Raonic/GA1. Again this review is my opinion completely inadequate and it seems to me our GA process does not have an effective way of dealing with these kind of substandard reviews once they have been concluded. The article itself is fine but the review, and therefore the GA process, is not. Can you give me your opinion on this particular review and advice on how to handle this? Thx. --Wolbo (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Wolbo, I see what you mean about that review. It does appear to be quite a bit sub-standard with evidence of a poor grasp of Wikipedia guidelines, policy, the Manual of Style, and the GA criteria. I have left a reply to your comment at the reviewer's talk page and I hope that they decide to follow that advice.

As before, when you asked me to weigh in, the article itself appears to be of high quality. It may be that, despite the inadequate review, the nominator prepared an article fit to be reviewed by a more stringent reviewer and therefore, maybe no harm was done. It would certainly be worse if the nominator's article was unfit to be reviewed for GA yet it was passed anyway.

Regardless, there is a process for editors like yourself who find an article listed as a good article yet you don't believe it satisfies the good article criteria: the good article reassessment. The process is there for you to use if you are willing. (Note that, of course, the object is to try to get the article to the good article standard and not to penalize the good article reviewer.) Best, Prhartcom (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

John Wilson Bengough at AN3

Hello Prhartcom. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Eric Corbett reported by User:Curly Turkey (Result: ). This is about an article you have edited recently, though the report doesn't mention your name. Perhaps you have an idea about how to resolve the dispute. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston, it is an honor to receive this request from you. I have commented at AN3 in the best way I know. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Lascaux

As I've already pointed out to you, the statement is already referenced in the body, and any number of other sources exist to back it up. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Stevenmitchell, read the whole article or do a CLT-F and type "cave". You'll see it mentioned twice. The first is in the lead section, which you tried to flag. The second is in the body of the article, where, like everything else in the article body, is correctly cited to its source. Lead sections should actually not include footnotes to citations, since it is a summary only of what is stated and cited further down. Prhartcom (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• No, actually, Prhartcom, it is not referenced further down (which I had actually checked at the time). Had it been referenced I would not have posted its need for a citation. It is only stated in a single sentence that is most likely the invention and embellishment of Curly Turkey in the article. And it is totally unreferenced anywhere in the article (especially further down where the following references refer to different arguments having nothing to do with Lascaux at all), and yet it is part of the summary "opinion" that only a highly speculative argument would present. Even in evolutionary psychology, which tries to stretch associations, there is no suggestion that comics have any link whatsoever to cave paintings in Lascaux or any other European cave illustrations. It is the assertion of the editor who contributed this "observation" or "conclusion" and it is theirs alone... But is there is certainly no reference - legitimate or otherwise - in the article... Stevenmitchell (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Anonymous editor deleted from List of pen names

Thanks, Prhart..., appreciate your irony: "not notable" is the aim of anonymous writing; glad to see I've acheived that much~--Shastakath (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The editor is referring to my revert of the edit they made, adding themselves to List of pen names. Prhartcom (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Doombot

An article that you have been involved in editing—Doombot —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

GA queries

Hi Prhartcom. As a novice reviewer, I still have few doubts about reviewing GAs and am writing an essay where your answers will be summarised. Considering you seem to be experienced and a WikiProject GA watcher, would you kindly answer some questions I have regarding them in general? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Ugog Nizdast, of course I'm happy to help. You seem to be doing a fine job in your reviewing. Prhartcom (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Here are the questions, you can answer them here:

1. Criteria 2c, 2d requires access to sources: should a reviewer avoid an article where they have not much access to any of the sources given? or fail it if the nominator has partial access themselves?

Ugog Nizdast, first of all, I am not too worried about your capabilities, as you are conducting yourself quite competently over at the Public Storage article (I was involved in that article's GAR last year and I know the nominator; I can vouch for his abilities; I hope this GAN has a good conclusion soon). To answer your question, no, I would not avoid that kind of article, however it does require you to assume good faith that the unreachable, cited sources actually contain what the nominator says it does. (I wrote a featured article that cited only difficult-to-acquire books; my reviewers probably could not access my bibliography but they assumed good faith in my abilities.) One possible idea is something I did recently in a review: I picked a particular passage in the article, noted its source, then demanded that the nominator please go to that page of that source and double-check again for me now: Does it indeed say what is stated here?

1. Criteria 3 requires subject knowledge: does that mean one being unfamiliar with the topic should not review it? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, no, I wouldn't say that it requires subject knowledge, although that certainly helps. Instead, the reviewer can simply demand to know from the nominator if they are positive that the article broadly covers the subject of the article and that nothing important is left out? Again, it comes down to good faith. (A Google search doesn't hurt either.) Hope this helps. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 05:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)