Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Legion (season 1)/1
Legion (season 1) edit
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Withdrawn by nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think this article meets criteria 1A. Some articles have been passed recently, and members of GOCE have been trying to copyedit them post-review to help them meet 1A. However, my attempts to copyedit on this article have been reverted, based on a Wikipedia article as a grammar reference. I used grammar references when making the copyedit, Grammarly' rules for semi-colons clearly say the conjuction should be deleted. I was asked to discuss it on talk, but I've decided to nominate it for reassessment. I don't want to become involved in any disputes about the article, I am just a copy editor and GA reviewer. In my opinion the article does not meet the 1a criteria, it should not have been passed with grammar errors, and I don't think it quite meets the "Well-written" criteria yet. Though it is close, I do think it needs a copyedit or a more thorough review then the one it received to pass 1a. Seraphim System (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Arguing over semicolons and parsing rules about commas versus semicolons, while simultaneously jeopardizing article stability themselves in the process [1] [2], seems like a disruptive waste of the community's time and patience with a spurious request. Sagecandor (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Aside from the fact that the editor who passed the review should obviously allow other editors an opportunity to comment, I am opting to discuss with the editor who initiated discussion on my talk page, because it's not his fault that the GA review was not done thoroughly. So, withdrawn for now but I will say this much, part of being a GA reviewer is close-reading and noticing things like where the editor missed commas, so you can fix those errors before passing an article, This article does have some missing commas, and may have other simple errors or typos, but I am looking at it closely now and discussing it with the editor (something which should have happened in the original GA review.)Seraphim System (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- "simple errors or typos" = not a reason to waste the community's time and patience with this process at this page. Sagecandor (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Simple errors and typos are not the issue, and I appreciate BlueMoonset's advice on this. I filed this too hastily, and I'm going to need to take some time to think about. After a long discussion last night, I don't think the lede is where it needs to be. The editor seems to have lost all interest in working on improving the article after I withdrew the GAR. But I will give it some time. Semicolons are not simple punctuation error—they are a catastrosphe when they are used irresponsibly. Every piece of grammar advice I have seen on this says semi-colons are useful, but they must be used with extreme care, judiciously—and with good judgment. I am going to take some time away from the article and read it again in a few months. As it is, there are numerous very long winded complex sentences that are connected by semi-colons. On my first read through, this made the article nearly incomprehensible to me. This seems to be a consensus in the literary world/grammar sources, so I am surprised to find myself so highly criticized here for asking that we think of our reader's when writing, even though it may take a little extra effort on our parts to do so. Either way, I will take a long break from this. Seraphim System (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- "simple errors or typos" = not a reason to waste the community's time and patience with this process at this page. Sagecandor (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Aside from the fact that the editor who passed the review should obviously allow other editors an opportunity to comment, I am opting to discuss with the editor who initiated discussion on my talk page, because it's not his fault that the GA review was not done thoroughly. So, withdrawn for now but I will say this much, part of being a GA reviewer is close-reading and noticing things like where the editor missed commas, so you can fix those errors before passing an article, This article does have some missing commas, and may have other simple errors or typos, but I am looking at it closely now and discussing it with the editor (something which should have happened in the original GA review.)Seraphim System (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)