Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Public Storage/1

Public Storage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted.

This article being passed as GA immediately prompted some heated discussion here and here. I am not myself (as nominator) contesting the article's GA status. On the contrary, it's unfortunate that so much drama occurred as to discourage the GA reviewer from doing future reviews, especially given the backlog. However, it seems obvious given the discussion that the review will require further deliberation and that a single GA reviewer will not satisfy all parties. I apologize that my COI disclosure has made this review more painful than it should be. I have done 30+ GAs with a COI and this kind of thing can unfortunately be common, as @Sportsguy17: can attest to, but good-faith discussion can often overcome such obstacles. CorporateM (Talk) 08:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Article meets all GA criteria, including NPOV. A question from another editor with respect to a few minor grammar issues (e.g. an errant period after "Inc.", etc.) has been resolved. This is a well-composed, compact, nicely sourced article on a relatively meaningless subject. LavaBaron (talk) 08:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep I pre-reviewed the article before its GAN nomination and resolved all style and grammar issues that I discovered (I believe this is one reason the review went quickly and smoothly). I decided the article met the NPOV requirement expected of any article and agree now that it meets the GA criteria expected of good articles. I examined the sources and found them properly independent, secondary sources and even read the scanned versions the nominator temporarily provided. The "ConsumerWatch: Insurance Issues" source and its topic is still in the article and is not given undue weight; if necessary, another phrase could be added at most. The article's History section that documents how the company grew is notable and is the proper focus of the article. Reading the history of edits and discussion that has taken place on this article makes it clear that the COI nominator is not inflicting any positive spin or minimizing any negative damage and in fact has prevented other COI editors from doing so. If a source that states the size of the corporation is outdated this could be a minor problem and if so this should be resolved if more recent sources exist. Prhartcom (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the article was in great shape when I found it which made the review pretty painless and required CorporateM to only agree to one round of edits to earn promotion. Thanks for the advance work you put into it, Prhartcom. LavaBaron (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose GA status at this time. GAs are supposed to be "stable" at the time of review. This article was completely rewritten one day before. Accordingly, it is not a stable article and other interested editors should have the opportunity for careful review of the new content before a rushed GA review. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. It's also the first time you've made it. When you were kind enough to come to my Talk page and pound my review as "shockingly inadequate" and threatened me with a flurry of complaints at "venues of [your] choosing" unless I promised not to participate in GA ever again and to rescind my GA determination, it was because of "blatant pro-investor POV." These continually evolving reasons as to why the GA is "shockingly inadequate" is becoming increasingly difficult to track. It's become very clear you don't like PS. Frankly, neither do I since they cost me a $45 deposit once. That's not a valid reason to block the article, or to threaten other editors with ultimatums unless they do as you order them. LavaBaron (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The article clearly does not qualify for GA at this time because of the complete rewrite the day before, LavaBaron, which means that it is not yet stable. Please respond to that point. I am not obligated to mention every problem immediately. I needed a little time to look over the GA criteria. I did not ask you to stop all GA reviews but rather I expect you to complete them cautiously and correctly. You were the first to mention taking this matter to ANI or COIN, while I asked for it to be resolved another way. Then you asked me to stay away from your talk page. It should be clear to uninvolved parties who is being stubborn here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cullen - I revoked your privileges on my Talk page after you started making threats such as "I most certainly will bring your reviewing to a broader community venue of my choosing" [1] and belittling comments such as "your review ... is shockingly inadequate." [2] Prhartcom and other editors disagree with your assertion this is not GA ready and, while I understand you may feel wronged by an evolving consensus that does not support your opinion, it does not excuse you to heap abuse on me. As I indicated, this is the only reason I chose to revoke your privileges at my Talk page. If you can indicate you are ready to begin addressing me using a civil tone, I will be delighted to restore your privileges on my Talk page. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's not be combative; I never agree with that. Cullen328 has their good faith reasons for speaking out and they may have a good point. Hopefully consensus will decide. If so, and since you and I and Cullen328 have already voiced our opinion, it can do so without our help. Prhartcom (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I again request that you address the substantive point here, LavaBaron. How can an article be considered "stable" when it was completely rewritten the previous day? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Cullen - I again decline your request for reasons previously and exhaustively stated elsewhere. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree, Prhartcom; it's not necessary for editors to leave combative notes on each others Talk pages. LavaBaron (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delist: at the moment, the article still has grammar issues: I noted a significant number elsewhere (though the post was deleted), and they still aren't all fixed. There are also statements that are not supported by the referenced sources. Ideally, the article can be brought up to GA level with additional work, but it simply isn't there at the moment, and if the fixes aren't made my "!vote" will remain as it is. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delist Within the past 72 hours, the article has been completely rewritten once, removing a significant amount of well-referenced critical content. Since then, in other edits, critical content has been removed and restored. Accordingly, the article fails the GA criteria #5 that the article be stable. The reviewer has not yet addressed this issue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

For bookkeeping purposes I've struck your first !vote. Typically editors just !vote once per thread. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Needed work

Since I have noted that there are significant issues, this section is to note what still needs fixing, and for the nominator to note what has been addressed.

• Real Estate Limited Partnership Financing subsection:

• "mid-1980s" appears thrice, both with and without the hyphen. It is correct if the hyphen is included.

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 21:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• paragraph 4, sentence 3: this is not supported by the source, which says "at least 70" and also "Public Storage plans to raise $100 million, which should buy about half of the properties". In other words, they hadn't bought them yet, hadn't even raised the money, and thought it could be used to buy around 35 of them. To say that they did buy 35 of 70 properties is simply not supported in the source; plans in the business world are derailed all the time, or even exceeded; if they'd raised more, they might well have bought more.

 Done Nice catch. Like the item below, I reviewed the source and trimmed the sentence entirely. It only covers potential plans and does not cover it in a way that suggests it was significant. I think I was kind of hesitant to include this in the first place. 35 locations is probably not that significant in the scope of things. CorporateM (Talk) 22:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Recent history subsection: "It had been looking for another opportunity to acquire it ever since." Since they'd last tried in 2005, a 2006 acquisition is hardly "ever since". Please recast; you might want to try a "failed in 2000 and 2005 but succeeded in 2006" approach; I'd frankly expect an article at the GA level to explain why the 2006 bid succeeded when the noted prior attempts failed.

 Done I reviewed the source again and the article-text. I think that sentence was probably uneccessary filler and have trimmed it. The sentence preceeding it already looks good, mentions both failed efforts and why (the other company rejected the offer)CorporateM (Talk) 21:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Self-storage and other services, final sentence: "especially off freeways and intersections" reads oddly; do you mean adjacent to freeways, or near freeway interchanges? Are they only near intersections of major streets, or near any streets? This could use clarification.

 Done I used "near" CorporateM (Talk) 21:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Corporate structure and operations section, Public Storage is the largest of four publicly traded self-storage REITs. This sentence states this as a current fact ("is"), but the source is from 2008. It either needs to add an "As of 2008," at the beginning, or find a current source to back up the claim.

 Done FYI - There are more recent sources that suggest this is still true, but I haven't seen anything quite Wikipedia-compliant source-wise. For example, this Forbes post confirms there are still 4 and that PS has a "dominant" market cap out of the four, but the post is authored by a "contributor" rather than staff and therefore should not be used. CorporateM (Talk) 21:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

More later when I have time. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Great work, CorporateM, addressing these minor corrections! Sounds like the situation has resolved itself and we can all go back to our regular programming and put this WP:DRAMA behind us. Congrats again on the GA article! LavaBaron (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

LavaBaron, as I said earlier, this was all I had time for today. I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop claiming the GA is all set every time someone makes a few fixes, when your lack of thoroughness in the original review is what brought us here in the first place. You have done your review, it has been found wanting—though you refuse to recognize it by calling these "minor corrections" when every single one of them should have been found and addressed during the original review. Each post you make is only prolonging the "drama" by misrepresenting the status of this reassessment, yet more evidence that you do not truly understand the GAN and GAR processes; I strongly recommend that you observe only from this point on, rather than attempting to short-circuit the GAR process by saying it's complete when it is anything but. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

BlueMoonset - I acknowledge that you have found my GA review wanting. I acknowledge other editors do not agree with you. It's great we can discuss these things. Once again, I am going to decline your recommendation for me to be quiet and "observe." I wish you the very best. LavaBaron (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (edit conflict) In the original review, it doesn't appear as if any fact checking or searching for other sources was conducted in order to ensure the "neutral" criterion was met i.e. "represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each." It's impossible to tell whether an article is properly balanced unless a reviewer has a search for sources themselves to ensure major viewpoints are covered proportionally and checks that sources are reliable. This is particularly true when the editor has disclosed a COI even though I'm confident that CorporateM is acting in good faith. I have concerns about this source which is a careers guide and not likely to be edited to a high standard. It reads like PR to me and is in stark contrast to the USA Today source which says most workers are paid $ 9-10/hr. It's also surprising that the founder being a billionaire [3] [4] [5] and the 50 % profit margin isn't given greater prominence... or that the CEO makes $15 m. The article could also do with more background on self-storage, B. Wayne Hughes and REIT/RELPs (what are they? why did they use them?). There's also no mention of the number of sq feet they have or who their competitors are. While the current version is a vast improvement on the previous versions, but due to these problems I think that it needs delisting. SmartSE (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I did conduct a very thorough review. My judgment was that "the founder being a billionaire" is no more necessary to include for the Public Storage article to be GA-listed than it was to include for the Pixar article (it wasn't); the same goes for a list of competitors - not only is a list of competitors not necessary to achieve NPOV, it is more uncommon in GA articles than it is common (Pixar, for instance, makes no mention of DreamWorks and yet was passed as GA). As seen in the Pixar comparison, this - and your other criticisms - do not describe "bright lines" that must be met for inclusion, but rather personal preferences you have for this article that are better addressed through routine edits you are free to make at any time, even after the article is GA-passed. (User:SmartSE - sorry if this sounds abrupt or curt, it is not meant to be, I'm typing on a tablet atm and can't afford the pleasantries I'd normally pepper this with.) LavaBaron (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The now-retired founder B. Wayne Hughes probably qualifies for a separate article, but I normally see it as a problem when articles about companies include tangentially relevant biographical information on their executives.[6] The USA Today source and its criticisms are included in the current article, but I just put "close to minimum wage", since surely that number has changed. I'm sure both sources are bias, which is a good reason to include both of them (original research on wages suggests the USA Today article to be highly exaggerated) I'm not sure I understand the comment "REIT/RELPs (what are they? why did they use them?)", because this is all explained in the article. It explains that the founder didn't like bank loans, so he used real estate investments instead; the Corporate Structure section includes a definition of REITs, etc.

Anyways, I keep getting edit-conflicts. I've been trying to just post a thank you to Bluemoon for some great feedback above. If you have more, I am keen to hear it. These were excellent suggestions regarding specific article-text and specific sources, all of which were actionable and corrected. CorporateM (Talk) 22:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, mentioning the net worth of the company's founder, or his favorite golf driver, or the number of cats he has, would be a startling violation of WP:SUMMARY which is a positive criteria for GA and is one reason these trivia bits aren't included in the bulk of other GA articles. Also agreed that BM offered great suggestions for continuing additions to this article after it was correctly promoted to GA status. LavaBaron (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) LavaBaron, I'm in awe at your complete inability to see anything wrong with your review, even that it was incomplete, as the evidence mounts that you missed more and more basic GA criteria—this refusal to see any issues at all makes it increasingly clear to me that you have no business working in GA. It was not correctly promoted, and the corrections I've been offering should every one have been called out and addressed in the review process. I'll be posting my recommendation to the GA talk page shortly; the paper trail here and elsewhere is ample demonstration of your blindness here. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM, as I said in my original post, the idea of a GAR is to come out on the other side with the article truly qualified as a GA. Based on what I've found so far, the GAN review missed significant issues; I'm hoping that the people here will find what remains. I'm not at my best when dealing with NPOV, so I won't be concentrating on that issue, and my time is limited this week, so it may be next week or the week after before I can be satisfied that I've checked what I can. I appreciate your kind words. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your continuing feedback BlueMoonset. At the present time I agree with Prhartcom, that the article was correctly promoted to GA and that I am "quite capable" of reviewing GA nominees. I don't believe simply shouting ever-louder that I "have no business working in GA" - or invoking increasingly savage invectives (I notice I've now gone from "unqualified" to "blind") is a productive use of this forum, however. ANI (or really any other forum than GAR) is probably a better one to pursue this crusade. I hope this note finds you well, BlueMoonset - best, LavaBaron (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm honestly curious whether Prhartcom still truly believes, given the significant issues found and corrected since your listing of the article, ones that CorporateM has described as "actionable", that the original GA review was complete and correct in listing the article. I confess that I'll be quite surprised if so. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see the community decide in either direction, even if it shows that my thoughts were wrong, especially from editors whose opinions I trust, such as yours BlueMoonset. For example I also respect the opinion of SilkTork, who I see agrees with you, so it looks like consensus has decided. The good news is the article will be even better and more accurate than it was. I have no doubt CorporateM will be able to make the necessary improvements. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I am still awaiting a simple answer from LavaBaron explaining how this article meets GA criteria #5 as "stable" in the context of a total rewrite in the last 72 hours. Waiting, and so far, receiving no responsive answer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Cullen - as you know, I've already noted your question and patiently provided a response. I apologize you did not find it a satisfactory response. As you continue to pepper this thread with that question, please don't ping me, if you don't mind. I'm burning through GA reviews hot 'n heavy right now and it's a little distracting to have to keep coming back here to retype essentially the same thing over and over. (Speaking of which, we've got a backlog at GA right now - it would be amazing if you could put some of that great energy of yours into hitting some of these.) Thanks so much, Cullen - hope you're having a great evening! LavaBaron (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I must have missed your substantive response, LavaBaron. Please link to it, or cut and paste it here. Any other editor can do the same. All I want is an explanation how this article complies with GA criteria #5. A green check mark is not enough. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment by SilkTork

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• One image is used, which is appropriately tagged.
• There are no images of the facilities. This is not a fail, but I would have thought it possible to obtain such an image, especially as on eof the significant contributors is in contact with the subject of the article. We have images of other self storage units, but it appears not of this one. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC) I must have been looking at an older revision, as I see there are now two images in the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• Images are relevant, appropriately tagged and captioned. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Prose is (mostly) clear and concise, though I have some questions. Is it "setup" or "set up"? Is it "Real Estate Limited Partnership Financing" or "Real estate limited partnership financing" as the section header, per MOS:HEADINGS? Same for "Real Estate Investment Trust". Sometimes the conciseness of the text leads to terseness, as in the Recent history section which has an uncomfortable sequence of short sentences. Additionally, the conciseness leads to occasionally teasing statements, such as "Public Storage helped popularize the use of self-storage businesses as a real estate investment vehicle" (how did they achieve that is the question that pops into my mind), and "Poor weather and difficult labor markets outside of California delayed development projects" (ooh! what were these difficult labor markets?). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Is it "incomes" or "income"? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done It looks like it should have been "set up" as a verb, rather than "setup" the noun. CorporateM (Talk) 14:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done It's "Real Estate Limited Partnership financing" because RELP appears to be all-caps (based on a quick Google search). CorporateM (Talk) 14:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done copyedited the Recent history section

Will see if the sources have more information on the other two items. CorporateM (Talk) 14:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Query. The opening sentence is: "Public Storage is an international real estate investment trust (REIT) based in Glendale, California that operates self storage warehouses." Why is the REIT structure of the company prioritised over its operation as a self storage warehouse. Also, the opening sentence makes it appear to be a California only company, though by the fourth sentence, we learn that it operates nationally and internationally. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done "based in" was just meant to refer to the location of their headquarters. I changed it to "headquartered"

It's pretty standard for company articles to say in the very first sentence whether it's private, public, a non-profit, or in this case an REIT, as a matter of defining the subject. However, recently a GA reviewer (don't remember who) asked to add a sentence defining what an REIT is (the very last sentence now), which I think could be trimmed to reduce emphasis, since it is wikilinked and explained in the article-text. For now I moved it to the bottom of the paragraph. CorporateM (Talk) 15:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not concerned by this edit, mentioned above by Cullen, as that is article development rather instability; however I am curious about this series of edits in which the same text is removed, replaced, removed and replaced. If this is a potential edit war, the article is unstable, but if there is a legitimate reason, that is fine. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Silk. That edit was discussed and the editor that originally removed it (Lava) said it was ok to restore when prompted by PRhartcom. I also supported it and I think there is pretty clear consensus for it. You'd have to go diving through mountains of Talk page strings to get the full context, but I don't think it will be a problem. CorporateM (Talk) 15:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• What is essential difference between the sections Self-storage and other services and Corporate structure and operations? They seem to be covering the same area, that is, what it is the company does, and how it does it. But there are also other details contained in those sections which don't appear to belong there, such as the details of property damage incidences, and the auctions. I think I would find it easier to understand if the company operations information were in one section, and the additional information such as the auctions and problems were in another. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I know what you mean. An Operations or Corporate structure section is pretty standard, but it is small so we should consolidate if we can. That being said, creating a dedicated section for problems would be a WP:CRITICISMS issue. CorporateM (Talk) 15:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• "he decided to bring the concept back with him to California" or "he brought the concept back"? Is it the decision or the action that we are interested in? If it's the decision, we would want to see details of what he did with the decision, but we then go straight into consequences of the action, so - unless there are details missing - I am assuming what is meant is "he brought the concept back". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 15:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• There is no section which is overly detailed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• I haven't done a full review, but at this stage I have enough queries regarding the article to feel that it would benefit from another review. I don't think the problems are huge, and I understand why it was passed - it is a fairly clear and concise article on a fairly small and self-contained topic, but as the article has been challenged, and it's not striking me as an obviously robust article, I would support a delist. At this point I haven't done any background research into the company, so I can't comment on some of the concerns regarding how neutral it is, or how appropriate it is that the article focuses on the funding of the company rather than its operations, however, I take those concerns onboard as part of my rationale to delist. When there are a number of concerns and queries, and my own reading throws up doubts, I feel the best course of action would be to delist, and for significant contributors to work on addressing concerns raised before renominating, and for the article to then have a robust review, in which the reviewer makes clear they have examined the article against the concerns raied. I don't think there were problems with the first review - it seems fine to me, and I'm not criticising it; it's just that after a challenge, a second review needs to be "obviously" robust in order to reassure observers that all areas of concern have been examined. Delist. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you so much for your thoughts, SilkTork! Now that the community has seen your uninvolved review, I believe consensus has decided to delist. If anyone wishes me to, I will remove it from GA so that CorporateM can request a new review after making the necessary improvements. The good news is the article will be even better and more accurate than it was. Cheers, all. Prhartcom (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Prhartcom:!! I agree that a delist and renomination is in order. I have also culled through the items raised by Silktork and addressed them. CorporateM (Talk) 15:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with SilkTork's rationale that there were no "problems with the first review - it seems fine" but, due to the verbosity of the challenges raised, it would be wise to delist. CorporateM, I'll be happy to give it a second "obviously robust" review ASAP, and will bring in a second editor to eliminate any possibility of future questions, and look forward to passing it. Sorry you had to go through this but thanks again for everyone's help! LavaBaron (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

LavaBaron, until this reassessment is concluded by an uninvolved party, whether Keep or Delist, no other review or nomination should be started. It may take a while. And, given the controversy over your original review of this nomination, I think you should allow another editor to be the main reviewer any subsequent GAN and make the final decision whether to list, though of course you'd be welcome to add your thoughts, as is anyone on GA reviews. You still clearly have much to learn about the GA process—you have yet to correctly close any of your reviews (you'll want to review the instructions at WP:GANI before doing any future closes)—and I haven't seen evidence here that you have learned any lessons in improving your reviews from this experience. The fact that SilkTork found so much—everything he flagged is the sort of thing you or any other reviewer should have flagged—you should be taking on board as what else you ought to look for when doing future reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your continuing feedback, BlueMoonset! I'm in alignment with the community consensus expressed by SilkTork's assessment that there were no "problems with the first review - it seems fine" and Prhartcom's comment that my GA-review skills seem "quite capable." I appreciate your passionate disagreement with the consensus and am glad we can express our differences to each other civilly, though I would question whether a single editor's disagreement with consensus - no matter how loudly expressed - could accurately be described as "controversy" but I'm happy to agree to disagree. (P.S. All of my GA reviews have been correctly closed. I'm planning to burn 'n churn several more today so feel free to point-out, using specific examples, any bookkeeping errors if you notice them.) Hope all is well with you. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that none of us are uninvolved enough to objectively carry out a GAN review at this point. I think we can wrap up this reassessment. Cheers all. Prhartcom (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I've requested closure here that reflects the consensus that there were no "problems with the first review - it seems fine" but that unanimous concurrence was to delist anyway. LavaBaron (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Since there wasn't only a single editor disagreeing with what really isn't consensus, your argument is moot. Also, maintaining that you have correctly closed all your GA reviews when a simple recheck on your part would show that I had to fix a "successful" close and Nikkimaria had to work on an unsuccessful one; this should be a clue to you that you really need to study the various information pages on how the GAN process works, including the basic mechanics. People are having to clean up after you because you aren't following the established procedures, and that's not good. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset - I've been burning 'n churning GA reviews lately so I don't doubt there may have been minor clerical errors in a minority percentage of them. While seasoned editors like SilkTork, PRhartcom, and others have been making me blush with how vociferously they've been applauding my GA-reviews, I'm sure an editor here or there may have noticed a misplaced comma or decimal point. You do an awesome job keeping everyone's clerical work honest. As I keep blasting through GAs (planning on clearing out the Econ section by EOW - fingers crossed!), I look forward to you keeping up with your awesome proofreading skill-set to keep me honest. Looks like we work well together and it's awesome to have you on Team LavaBaron - keep up the great work! Best - LavaBaron (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.