Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

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


Main Discussion Nominations Reassessment GA Cup Instructions Criteria Report Help Desk
Shortcut:

2nd Opinion requested[edit]

I have been having some differences with the reviewer for Bharatiya Janata Party on the review page. In particular, the reviewer has stated that a certain table contains original research and given me a deadline to fix it, but has not responded to my ideas on how to do so; therefore, more eyes would be most welcome there. The review page is here, and the particular issue is about the table of chief ministers. Since the review itself has been open for a month, any general input to speed the process up would also be welcome. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I have responded at your duplicate posting Wikipedia:Good article help#2nd Opinion requested. Prhartcom (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Tiny bug in Legobot?[edit]

It keeps on telling "New 1984 European Super Cup (sports and recreation)" in every edit, while nothing really happens with this article. Kareldorado (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Kareldorado, which article? Could you provide a link showing us what you mean? Prhartcom (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Prhartcom, this was at the Revision History of the GA nominations during 29 and 30 June, but apparently this is already sorted out, thanks anyway. Kareldorado (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Another problem with Legobot[edit]

I had a review "On hold", and Legobot took it off 13 minutes later. What is going on? — Maile (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Maile66, unfortunately the method you used to put the review on hold was incorrect and was overwritten by Legobot, who is normally the only one who edits that page (notice that the edit you point out contains some unrelated routine work by Legobot). Recall that clicking Edit on that page displays a warning suggesting that page should normally not be edited by us humans. The proper way to put an article on hold is explained here: Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions#Putting an article on hold. Hope this helps. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Oops. — Maile (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Reviewer using FA criteria on GA nominee[edit]

Please could someone with experience in GA reviewing please cast their eye over at Talk:Netherlands in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014/GA1. The reviewer alone has admitted to only being familiar with doing FA reviews, yet they still conduct a FA-style review, using FA criteria, on a GA nomination. I find this somewhat bizarre, and the finickiness of the reviewer is just petty. For example, stating that the bolding of the article title in the opening line is not permitted. Suggesting that we should change the terms "contest" to "race". Not a clue what they mean by "Easter egg link" when it comes to linking to yearly terms. Telling us not to "shout" in ref titles. It is not our fault if the website uses capitalised headlines. And they also asked us "what happened after the tour". How the hell are we to know, if no sources are published about what happened back-stage. And he also has threatened to "fail the review" if a second opinion request is submitted. That is just down-right childish and tantrum-like behaviour.

Talk:Austria in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014/GA1 which had a review a mere few days prior, is written in the same style, and was passed easily. The reviewer of that GAN carried out their style using the GA criteria, and they were more helpful when asked a question. This reviewer for the Netherlands article however, is just not being helpful, he assuming everyone knows everything, expects everyone to know where "phrases" are within the article that need to be changed by using "cmd-F" (something that even I didn't know could be done, be he assumed I MUST have known), rather than point them out. So please, could someone take a look and intervene and re-review if necessary. Thank you. Wes Mouse | T@lk 10:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I had a look and aside from The Rambling Man's banter maybe not travelling internationally, I don't see any problem. Okay, maybe he could append "Avoid SHOUTING in ref titles" with ";-)" but does he really need to? He's put the article on hold and is waiting improvements. It's exactly what I do, except when I don't know the nominator I dial the snark right back to avoid these sort of issues. Anyway, I've always done GA reviews with the mindset that you should list any valid improvements, and then only fall back on the GA criteria if it's too much work or you disagree eg: "well, I know it would be nice to talk about 'x' but I don't haven't any really good sources, so I think we can make do with this news summary for the minute and I think that's good enough for GA". TRM has directly said he wants the review to pass, though by legitimate means - AGF and respond to the issues and there shouldn't be a problem. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not using FA criteria to conduct these reviews. If I were, I'd fail many more of the nominations I review. By all means "investigate" my reviews. I'm sorry to see that I'm not being helpful, by all means ask any of the recent review nominators that I've passed whether I was being "helpful". My sole aim is the improvement of the article. It's actually quite good, not anywhere near FA quality, and I would be inclined to pass it, but the indignation and lack of any form of gratitude astonishes me. I'm happy for someone else to pass this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I must confess that I see no reason for the shouting and tossing dust in the air here. RM's review of the article was quite reasonable and polite. If you don't know what CTRL-F or "Easter egg link" mean, then just ask. To be honest, I think you owe RM an apology for the excessive indignation. To take the long view,getting a Hold (not Fail) from an FA reviewer is a positive thing... I am busy now but if you want another reviewer to look I can do so next week. • ArchReader 05:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, at least I know not to select any of the OPs GANs for review in future. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Black Creek (Susquehanna River)/GA1[edit]

Hello. I'm here to ask if someone else can takeover with the article and finish the review or pass it along to someone else. I had some things come up and was unable to tackle the review like I wanted. I'm very sorry I couldn't obtain the materials needed to finish the review. I should only aim to tackle articles that I can finish reviewing properly. Please respond as soon as you can. Please. Thanks for reading. LeftAire (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@LeftAire: I can take it over for you, if you haven't found someone yet. Wugapodes (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: Sure, I'm glad that someone came to the review's aide. Thanks! LeftAire (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

2nd Opinion requested on Leni Riefenstahl[edit]

I have appropriately requested a 2nd Opinion on the talk page and explained on Talk:Leni Riefenstahl/GA1. I would appreciate the 2nd opinion coming from an editor who has much experience on GAN. The article evolved as patchwork, and correcting it with a little adjustment here and there isn't going to help much. I've literally been going through sentence by sentence, source by source, because so much is unreliable. This is Day 2 of doing that, and I'm not at the end. But in fairness to the nominator, I've asked for a second set of eyes on this. — Maile (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

As I said above (but sig is. ArchReader), I can take a look a week from now if no one else does• Lingzh(talk) 13:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the offer. This has been taken care of now, and the nomination has Failed. — Maile (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)