Talk:Bowling Green Offices Building/Archive 1
Appearance
This is an archive of past discussions about Bowling Green Offices Building. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Possible GAN
@Another Believer: Thanks for the copy edit request. However, as the main contributor of the article, I do not think it is ready for GAN yet. I feel like there is a lot of information missing, especially in regards to the later history of this subject, as well as interior design and some additional criticism. epicgenius (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Epicgenius, Sure! Sorry, I wasn't meaning to rush anything, I just like to mention possible GAN when requesting copy edits from the GOCE, because they like tracking why editors are submitting requests. I certainly wasn't meaning to step on your toes or suggest your next actions. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Another Believer, it's really no problem. I appreciate the request, as I often find errors even in the articles I've created. It's nice to have a second or third pair of eyes. epicgenius (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Epicgenius, Agree 100%, I submit requests for copy edits by GOCE for almost all my article expansions and highly encourage other editors to do the same. If I submit other articles mostly written by you, I'll try to remember not to use "GAN" and similar codes, but if I do, please don't interpret this as me taking over or expecting your next move. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Another Believer, it's all right. Generally, I already write most article expansions with the intent of having the prose and sources close to GA quality. I might follow your example and send more of my article expansions to GOCE, though. epicgenius (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Epicgenius, You should! I've definitely found this a helpful step towards GA. Often the copy edit review addresses some issues that might arise during a GA review, and I'm sure editors like seeing the GOCE banner on the talk page because then at least the prose has been reviewed by another editor. Keep up the great work! I'm a fan of your contributions. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks! On further thought, the interior isn't too important, so I've nominated this page for GA status. epicgenius (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Epicgenius, You should! I've definitely found this a helpful step towards GA. Often the copy edit review addresses some issues that might arise during a GA review, and I'm sure editors like seeing the GOCE banner on the talk page because then at least the prose has been reviewed by another editor. Keep up the great work! I'm a fan of your contributions. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Another Believer, it's all right. Generally, I already write most article expansions with the intent of having the prose and sources close to GA quality. I might follow your example and send more of my article expansions to GOCE, though. epicgenius (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Epicgenius, Agree 100%, I submit requests for copy edits by GOCE for almost all my article expansions and highly encourage other editors to do the same. If I submit other articles mostly written by you, I'll try to remember not to use "GAN" and similar codes, but if I do, please don't interpret this as me taking over or expecting your next move. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Another Believer, it's really no problem. I appreciate the request, as I often find errors even in the articles I've created. It's nice to have a second or third pair of eyes. epicgenius (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)