Leave a message!
GA reviews (1)
- Okay, I will - erm...rather large picture on your front page there. But seriously, I find it is rare to encounter an article which has no typos or problems at all, and judging by your contributions at GA, you've found a few in a row. What gives? Also, using the checklist template to cut and paste might be better at showing how you've checked (I know there are cases where I haven't used it, but often there has been extensive conversation in them). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- PS: Sorry, I missed this, but did find some other bits and pieces. Anyway, all a learning curve. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I hope, LittleMissWikipoo, that you will reply to Casliber's welcoming message and concerns, as your short reviews of so many good article nominations so soon after creating an account this afternoon (UTC) have caused concern to multiple editors (see the next section). In particular, I have undone your pass of Brad Follmer and moved your review to Talk:Brad Follmer/GA1/archive to enable a new review of the nomination to take place.
- Your review stated that "the article is comprehensive and in good shape", whereas the article falls short of the GA standard in several respects. Here is one tip to spot problems: whenever you read a statement in an article which is not purely factual information (check: would pretty much everyone agree with this without question?) but contains opinion or analysis, ask yourself "according to whom?". Wikipedia articles should not have an opinion: they should simply report what reliable sources say, and cite them. In Brad Follmer, the first sentence states that The X-files is "a science fiction series about a government conspiracy to hide or deny the truth of Alien existence." That is analysis, and it is unsourced: certainly this is a theme in the X-files, but it is not the only theme. In the first section, sentences like "His true motives were more political in nature and part of his sycophancy to Alvin Kersh." are analysis, but the only source provided is primary (X-files episodes).
- A second tip is to ask questions about the sources. "What makes Airlock Alpha and E!Online reliable sources?" would be one. For another: "Why is Elwes comment to The Hollywood Reporter sourced to E!Online, rather than The Hollywood Reporter itself?"
- An article that looks good on the surface may have underlying problems. Good reviewing is about checking for such problems. Geometry guy 22:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
GA reviews (2)
Hi, just to let you know that your recent GA passes are being discussed at WT:Good_article_nominations#Some_strange_GA_reviews. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- In the light of your response there, this should be identified as an alternate account. You should be able to recall the account name you previously used by revisiting the edit histories of articles that you previously edited. Geometry guy 23:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think you have been correct to identify prose problems in your review of White Zombie. However, in light of the conflict at that review, and concerns about some of your other reviews (mentioned above), I would urge you to identify your previous account - as Geometry Guy says, it should be easy to do by looking at the edit histories of articles you used to work on. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Get me OUT of that White Zombie review! I'm desperately trying to be 'thorough' with that thing only to be thwarted at every turn. I've asked the nominator to rewrite the plot because there is misinformation in it. Dr. Bruner stays Madeline's knife-wielding hand not Beaumont! And what do I get? A nominator who tells the reviewer his poorly written article is a GA that only needs a light copy edit! Grrr! I assure you I will never ever review a GAC again. There's NOTHING in it for me and it just ain't worth the aggravation. This is an excellent case of damned if you do and damned if you don't! LittleMissWikipoo (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)