GA reviews edit
Instead of using an automated program, please give your comments when putting articles on hold. Not doing so is downright rude and disrespectful. – Chacor 05:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
GA Reviews edit
I'm sure everyone appreciates your enthusiasm, but marking this many pages as being "on review" is probably overdoing it a bit. The purpose of the review function is to avoid multiple reviews at the same time, and I doubt you'll be able to review all those articles at the same time. Please reconsider. - G1ggy Talk/Contribs 06:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Actually I believe, this could be misunderstanding about how the process works, since Kmarinas has kindly reviewed the article I nominated, but does not pass or fail it (or any other). Still, Kmarinas, when you tag an article as "under review", you obligate yourself to check the quick-fail criteria first, if these are OK, follow with a thorough review to either pass or fail the thing yourself. Your help is being appreciated, but I really wouldn't like to see my article in limbo much longer.. --Johnnyw talk 09:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Another user stepped in and passed the article. Thanks again for the review. --Johnnyw talk 15:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks also for your review of Alcohol in the Bible. It appears in this case that you are wanting another reviewer to voice an opinion, but there is no indication of that at the candidates page (it just has a {{GAReview}} -- perhaps I'll add a note). --Flex (talk/contribs) 12:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Your review of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (anime) has not addressed whether the article has passed or not. It is your discretion as the reviewer to pass or fail it depending on whether it meets the criteria - you don't have to wait for a second opinion (although you can ask for advice if you feel you need it). Furthermore, if you have concerns about the article - but they are correspondingly minor - then simply put the article on hold, and that should outline your thoughts on the manner. As for the article in question, User:Juhachi and I have fixed the issues you've brought up. If there are more issues, then please bring them up. Thanks. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 22:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Animaniacs good article review edit
Kmarinas,
Thank you very much for the speedy response, much appreciated. But I'm curious as to who actually passes the article, if you can tell me. Thanks again, Gak Blimby 01:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have not followed or learned yet the procedure of passing the article myself, since I believe other people's opinions are valuable.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 01:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Kmarinas, just a quick note. I think what you are doing is appreciated, but should be part of the peer review process, where feedback on how to improve the article is wanted. In the GA-process, the article should be that advanced, that a single user reviews the article to either pass or fail the article according to the step-by-step procedure described at the top of the Wikipedia:Good article candidates page. Maybe you should add a note to the articles you tagged with "under review", that another user should step in and complete the procedure. Greetings! Johnnyw talk 12:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Kmarinas, I believe that you are actually the one who is to decide if an article passes or fails, being the only one to review the Animaniacs article. So, the decision is up to your discresion. Thanks, Gak Blimby 23:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Kmarinas, thanks for taking the time to review the article! This is great! Gak Blimby 03:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Re: The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (anime) GA review edit
If you believe that the article has a "better chance of making it", why not re-review it and judge if the article passes since you were the one that gave the initial review.--十八 00:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting edit
Thanks for the GA review. I have made the changes to the lead (added an extra paragraph) and think the article fits MoS now. I'm not exactly sure which part/parts of the article you'd like expanded. No one else has given any GA suggestions, which may mean you will need be the judge of whether or not the article is a GA or not. Thegreatdr 21:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The Good Article Medal of Merit edit
|
The Good Article Medal of Merit | |
| I have awarded you this medal for your work in helping to reduce the backlog during the Good Article Candidates Backlog Elmination Drive. You reviewed five or more articles during the drive, which helped to contribute to the large decrease in the backlog. If you have the time, please continue to review articles to help make sure the backlog does not jump back up to what it was. Good job and happy editing! Nehrams2020 06:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC) |
Royal Military Police and In Excelsis Deo edit
Hi -- you've marked Royal Military Police and In Excelsis Deo as being under review for two weeks now. You haven't been active on either article; could you either fail or pass them, or take away the "under review" tag so that others can review them? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1997 Michigan Wolverines football team/archive1 edit
As a reviewer of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2005 Texas Longhorn football team, I thought you might consider commenting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1997 Michigan Wolverines football team/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)