Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Disqualification Log

Report a participant

Concern

Please note at Talk:Timothy M. Carney, User:Exoplanetaryscience began a second GA review of the article four hours after I posted that I would be reviewing the article, before I had begun a review. As the lead editor had not made edits since May, I wanted to ping the individual and see if they were still on board. In the meantime, Exoplanetaryscience comes in with this and quick fails the article. I do not think this was appropriate behavior, but I am not sure that the user meant any harm, so I would only ask that the rules be explained here. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 06:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I had left a post on my talk page, but in hindsight I take it to be rather rude. Here's what happened. Around 14:00 UTC yesterday I had begun to write a GA review, however while in the middle of writing it, I became busy and abandoned the project for later. When I came back, you had posted your section explaining that you would do a review later. I didn't want to remove my review, so I quickly finished it and posted it. In hindsight that was a bad decision, but I wish no hard feelings. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Cartoon network freak

Cartoon network freak has recently passed three articles for GA. I'm concerned because all the feedback they've given is wordsmithing. I don't see any real discussion of image permissions, citation accuracy, original research, etc. I confronted them on their talk page and they assure me this is par for the course. Sure enough, previous reviews done by this same editor are like this and all ought to face reassessment. I completed the GA reviewing course under Ed! so I'm confident I'm not wrong about these slipshod reviews. Please tell me if I'm missing something. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Chris troutman: I no way agree with the user above, and I also expressed that in a private conversation we had not long time ago. I always do my best when reviewing articles, and this can be checked by everyone who's interested. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Chris troutman: Please don't take this as a critique or as a hate comment, but the review for the last article you've passed to GA, John Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol, wasn't really that "in-depth" as you were concerned of my reviews. Maybe I give "happy-to-glad" comments, but overall, I try to do my best with the aspect and the flow of the text, while you just mentioned one or two mistakes and did not even check the sources. Maybe you can take a look at this to see how "deep" I went with my current review. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

In the very review you point out Notecardforfree asks you "did you check the citations to make sure that the cited sources actually support the assertions that are made in this article?" so I'm not the only one that has doubts about you. You're checking to see if links work and you're not even doing that manaully. I doubt you read even half of the citations. I'm checking every citation I can access including those I have to check out a book from the library to verify. You know you're short-cutting and I can see it, too. I don't have to justify myself to you or anyone as my work speaks for itself. I promise you, your work speaks volumes about you. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Chris troutman, 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, Zwerg Nase: As you can see above, I've pinged all the jury members in order to reply concerning your comment. I tried to be calm and patient, but obviously you're treating me like I don't know anything and even commentig negatively my work by saying that it "speaks volumes about me". I promoted several GAs and FLs here on Wikipedia, as you can see on my user page. People that promoted my GANs reviewed them the same way as I currently check others. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I've been trying to look over all submitted reviews, but, obviously, as just one person, I can't do that thorough a job. I'll look into this, and hopefully we can resolve things.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Looking through the articles again, the citations do support the content, and my Earwig checks only find quotes. However, Cartoon network freak, the fact that you are not checking EVERY references is very concerning. You need to do a thorough review, and for this contest, I am now insisting that you explicitly include a reference and copyvio check in your reviews. Finally, this photo is very questionable. The copyright date says circa 1928, and it is licensed as public domain in areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or less. But the author is listed as unknown, so how do we know that they aren't recently deceased (or, though far less likely, still alive?) I can't find out anymore information because the site blues.com is dead, and the uploader did not give a more explicit link. This is something of utmost importance that should have been done in your review. Unfortunately, I will have to strip those points for reviewing that article. The other articles are fine. Please be more careful in the future, or I will have to disqualify you.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

3family6, the link you provided for that photo doesn't work...has it been dealt with this swiftly? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Fixed the link. I already had put up a notice on that image.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

3family6, please see the GA Cup talk page; I reported an issue there with another review (Chamber pop) that is also concerning; the article has since been taken to GAR by Nikkimaria. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Shearonink and Seattle transit nominations

Shearonink has recently passed several of my Seattle-area transit nominations (checked by MrWooHoo and 3family6), but I've found the reviews to be very lacking in actual critique, with superfluous comments under each criterion that seem to "count" as part of this competition. Looking at their other reviews, however, I see longer reviews that are worthy of GAN standards.

I would just like to raise concerns here. I do not think this is deliberate or malicious, but I would like actual, critical feedback on my nominations, as they are done in series and I use comments from previous nominations to improve future ones. SounderBruce 23:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Apologies to SounderBruce for offending him with my Reviews - it would have been appreciated if his issues with my work had been brought up with me earlier in the process. I thought the articles were well-written, used factual information that was well-referenced, and I honestly didn't see how they didn't fulfill the 6 GA Criteria. I learned much from reading them. I am absolutely gobsmacked. Shearonink (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not offended, just concerned. I thought earlier reviews were flukes, but a pattern of pass-through reviews is apparent now. SounderBruce 23:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Because I am also a competitor I'll not accuse Shearonink of anything. I'd be gobsmacked, too, if the first I hear about a complaint is on a noticeboard (or its equivalent). That said, Route 41 (King County Metro) has 49 separate citations and Shearonink commented in the review "The references all look good - valid and up-to-date". That statement isn't impossible to be true but I find it unlikely, based on my experience. Seldom does an author do a good job at citing sources that I don't find inaccuracies. In Shearonink's defense, I'm finding there's a range of opinion on how thorough of an examination of sources is supposed to be. I'm probably the hardest grader on this criteria within this WikiProject and hence why I can't turn out the number of reviews that some editors do and why I won't likely compete in another GA Cup. There's no fun for me when I suspect other editors probably aren't doing what I do. The WikiProject GA members and GA Cup judges are to blame for not being clearer at the outset. I might be overly-stringent on the criteria and Shearonink might be meeting the spirit of the rules. I might be inflating the criteria. I will say that if the review you received (done in a day and a half) doesn't inspire you with confidence that you could get to an A-class or FA review, then I think a complaint is in order. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: Route 41 - the references looking valid/up-to-date are referring to the sources that I could not check, such as the Seattle Times articles from the 1950s-1990s. I checked the ones that I could. Is it possible that I made a mistake and that specific points of information were missed, is it possible that SounderBruce made a mistake in his referencing? Yes. Shearonink (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Re how many days have passed in the course of my doing a GA Review, in this case the Route 41 GA Review - Right now I am spending hours and hours going over articles and writing out my GA Reviews and regardless of the timestamps on my edits, I spend much more time off-Wiki reading an article and going over the prose etc. than might be indicated on a WP page. Shearonink (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

SounderBruce's articles that I reviewed are as follows:

Talk:Roosevelt station (Sound Transit)/GA1

Talk:Northgate Transit Center/GA1

Talk:Roosevelt station (Sound Transit)/GA1

Talk:Lynnwood Transit Center/GA1

Talk:Marshlink Line/GA1

Talk:Columbia City station/GA1

Talk:Angle Lake station/GA1

Talk:Route 41 (King County Metro)/GA1

Shearonink (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

And if these reviews don't pass muster then I should be disqualified from this GA Cup. Shearonink (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, I think that all of SounderBruce's articles should be held up as examples of what editors should strive for when they want to submit an article to the GA process. Shearonink (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll check these articles for quality, to see if these are slip-shod reviews or not. I will note that I do see SounderBruce's concern - many of these reviews are technically under 1,000 characters, which is the minimum for reviews in this competition. The reason that they have been allowed is because of the whole checklist that was filled out, which does add to the character count in a way that is very difficult to measure, and follows the spirit of that rule (ensuring that reviews aren't quick-passed). So, Shearonink, there is a valid reason for concern here, but so far I'm not seeing a problem (I need to check the articles, though). Ultimately, MrWhooHoo and I are also responsible, as we are the ones who checked these reviews.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so I looked over Roosevelt station and Route 41 - I didn't see problems with the citations/sourcing. Was there a particular reason for your concern, SounderBruce? It took me about a half-hour each to check over that, so it's not unreasonable for a review to take only three or four hours. In the case of Route 41, User:Shearonink took a day, which is what I would usually expect from timestamps on most GAs. I'm also pinging Ritchie333, since they were the nominator in the case of Marshlink Line: Ritchie333, do you think Shearonink was too hasty in their review? My own comment on the Marshlink Line review is this: Shearonink was too strict, as the GA criteria say nothing about deadlinks (see WP:GACN). I myself have probably been too strict in this regard. I've become more lax in some of the other standards that I used to apply, because as other editors, including Ritchie333, pointed out, they weren't part of the GA criteria.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@3family6: I didn't get the ping for some reason, so this response is belated. As far as Marshlink was concerned, both Redrose64 and Mjroots had both worked and commented on the article in some depth (as is typical for UK railway articles), so I was reasonably confident that a GA review would not find too many issues. I didn't see anything wrong with the review, otherwise I would have said so - I have called out quite a few other reviews as being slapdash (probably most notoriously Talk:Cambridge/GA2) so I'd like to think I'm a reasonable judge of when a satisfactory job has been done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)