Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857/GA1
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) 14:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler
editThis is a strange nomination, made by someone who has made a dozen other simultaneous nominations, and has little or no (I haven't checked) history of editing this hornet's nest of schools of historiography, of sources from Dickens to every shade of 21st century historian, in numbers very likely unseen on any other WP page. What is a GA reviewer going to do other than possibly clean up the grammar? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I thought involoved edds could not oversee a GA.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- This came out all wrong. I am not reviewing the page, just making a note. I left one on the nominator's talk page as well. I didn't want to see unnecessary burden placed on those (involved) editors who (unofficially) maintain the page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Ahh OK.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- What am I missing? Fowler, did you nominate the page for a GA review and then call it a strange nomination?--regentspark (comment) 19:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- @RegentsPark: No, no. @Cricketts19: did, but with no indication anywhere on this talk page of his intention to do so. I thought I was merely leaving a note at the review, but the bot took me to be the reviewer. (Note: Since Cricketts19 had made similar looking posts on other talk pages earlier, I mistook those as well to be GA nominations, an error the reference to which I have now scratched in my first post above.) Usually people nominating something for a GA review discuss it on a talk page first, though I imagine, on paper they don't have to. I left a message on his talk page, but he hasn't replied. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- I apologise for all the confusion caused by my GA nomination. I should have discussed it on my page first and that is my fault. As I have said to Fowler, I will withdraw the nomination if recommended to. And although I have not edited this period of history all that much, I do have knowledge of the subject, which I know to be complex, divisive and generally just a mess. I certainly am not at the same level however as the editors here. I am most likely making a mistake here, but I decided to make this step as I really want to contribute as much as I can to the site. Again, apologies and I will learn from this mistake. Cricketts19 (talk) 08:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- @RegentsPark: No, no. @Cricketts19: did, but with no indication anywhere on this talk page of his intention to do so. I thought I was merely leaving a note at the review, but the bot took me to be the reviewer. (Note: Since Cricketts19 had made similar looking posts on other talk pages earlier, I mistook those as well to be GA nominations, an error the reference to which I have now scratched in my first post above.) Usually people nominating something for a GA review discuss it on a talk page first, though I imagine, on paper they don't have to. I left a message on his talk page, but he hasn't replied. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- What am I missing? Fowler, did you nominate the page for a GA review and then call it a strange nomination?--regentspark (comment) 19:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Ahh OK.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- This came out all wrong. I am not reviewing the page, just making a note. I left one on the nominator's talk page as well. I didn't want to see unnecessary burden placed on those (involved) editors who (unofficially) maintain the page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, as I stated on your talk page, perhaps you can tell us (in a separate section) what you consider are the specific weaknesses of the article, beyond its letter grade anomalies and GA criteria generalities. That is how people usually discuss an article, how they create a informal consensus for such a review. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- A peer review may be appropriate. And helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Cricketts19, Fowler&fowler, RegentsPark, and Slatersteven: Can I suggest that this review simply be closed as a quick fail as nothing substantive appears likely to result from it? Regards,AustralianRupert (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- @AustralianRupert, Cricketts19, Fowler&fowler, RegentsPark, and Slatersteven: Yes, please do. Cricketts19 hasn't come back and the rest of us very likely don't have the time. Thanks for the post. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have not joined it because I do not thin there is any change of this passing, it is just way too controversial a topic.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, I have closed it as a quick fail per the guidance here: Wikipedia:Good article criteria. The immediate issues appear to be stability, large amounts of unreferenced information, and the presence of clean up banners/tags. Peer review is probably a better venue at this time to try to work through the issues present in the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have not joined it because I do not thin there is any change of this passing, it is just way too controversial a topic.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- @AustralianRupert, Cricketts19, Fowler&fowler, RegentsPark, and Slatersteven: Yes, please do. Cricketts19 hasn't come back and the rest of us very likely don't have the time. Thanks for the post. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Cricketts19, Fowler&fowler, RegentsPark, and Slatersteven: Can I suggest that this review simply be closed as a quick fail as nothing substantive appears likely to result from it? Regards,AustralianRupert (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)