Talk:Singapore Stone/GA1

Singapore Stone semi auto peer review

Added tag as per Singapore Stone semi auto peer reviewSriMesh | talk 05:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This article underwent a previous automated peer review, and I have already taken into consideration the suggestions made there. As to the alleged existence of weasel words, I don't think there are any that haven't been backed up by citations. The Singapore Stone may date back to the 10th or 11th century, and it just isn't possible for the experts writing about the artefact to be more certain about it. It appears that the basis for the claim by both the previous and the present automated peer reviews is that the phrase "it has been" occurs in the article. I did a search for the phrase, and it only appears once in footnote 16. I'd argue that that is hardly an excessive use of weasel words. Cheers, Jacklee 13:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I note that you've removed the "weasel words" tag on reviewing my request. Thanks very much. Cheers, Jacklee 21:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

Take care of the weasel words issue first. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The "weasel words" tag was added earlier today by SriMesh, who referenced a talk page discussion that I can't find. Does the article really have a problem with weasel words, and is the problem severe enough to fail the article? If so, please give several examples of weasel words in the article, and suggest how Jacklee (who is the primary contributor to the article) and I can address this issue. If not, or if I do not receive a reply within three days, I will file a GA reassessment request. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, J.L.W.S., I think what happened was that Rschen7754 failed the article on the basis of the apparent use of weasel words, and relying on this SriMesh added the tag. It was not SriMesh who identified the article as containing weasel words. I have put a note on Rschen7754's talk page requesting that the weasel words be identified on this talk page. Also, note my response to the automated peer review initiated by SriMesh. (I should add that I don't usually find automated peer reviews to be very helpful, as they tend to highlight problems that don't exist.) Cheers, Jacklee 13:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I failed the article on the basis of there being that template. Articles with cleanup templates cannot be GA's. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, I think the template is unjustified for the reasons indicated in the section above. I believe SriMesh inserted the template solely on the basis of an automated peer review. I will ask him to explain his reasons for placing the template, and if he doesn't respond within a reasonable time I'll remove the template and ask you to review the article again, if that's all right. Cheers, Jacklee 19:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You will need to renominate the GA through the normal channels. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Following my request for specifics, SriMesh has decided to remove the "weasel words" tag. I've therefore listed the article for Good Article reassessment. Cheers, Jacklee 21:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The reassessment has now been closed and the article renominated. Geometry guy 20:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)