Talk:Federalist No. 4/GA1
GA Review
[edit]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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: ErnestKrause (talk · contribs) 23:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Procedural Note: I'm noticing that you have 3 GANs in line and that you appear to have not been following Wikipedia policy for promoting articles on behalf of the project pages which provide ratings for the articles they cover. The Wikipedia policy is fairly direct in stating that "any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article...", can do the assessments but not the contributors themselves. You were the contributor and I'll be reverting your self-promotions to all three articles today; they appear to be start and stub articles to my reading and I'm reverting your self-promoting them to B-class which appears to be against Wikipedia policy.
This adds to the direct difficulty to addressing the assessment of these start/stub articles which appear to have been improperly nominated and are all three not ready for considered promotion according the Wikipedia Quickfail instructions for GAN nominations. Both the main Federalist article and the sub-articles you've been nominating appear to need significant work in order not to be de-listed. I've already started to explain to you above that the Federalist article is in poor condition apparently from over-edits over 15-20 years, and you appear to have stated that you don't care since its not the article you nominated. Your current 3 nomination I'm Quickfailing as not yet ready for GAN nomination due to their still being start/stub articles with what appear to be poor lede sections, and very rudimentary contents barely covering material being useful. When I suggested that you consider pulling together the Jay letters together, then you appeared to reject the idea outright despite the fact that its the way text books normally would present and organize this material. Possibly you can re-nominate if you consider pulling these early Jay papers into a single article; that might move them further than being stub/start articles which do not appear to be either B-class or even C-class articles. This is a Quickfail according to Wikipedia policy and I'm requesting that you no longer self-promote article on behalf of Wikipedia projects without informing them of what you are doing. Article is Quickfailed. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)