Talk:Francis March/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dthomsen8 (talk · contribs) 10:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dthomsen8, this review was opened nearly two months ago, but has no comments. Are you intending on continuing the review? Likewise, Elizabeth Emerson, you have no edits since December; are you still around to answer comments? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the nominator does not respond to the recent question, the nomination should be failed as a result of inactivity. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Usernameunique, I am still available for questions. I'm not very familiar with the GA nomination process, so I apologize for not responding. Elizabeth Emerson (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC) Elizabeth Emerson[reply]

Closure

As a result of inactivity, this GAN will ✗ Fail. Feel free to re-nominte if you feel. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AmericanAir88: Re-nominating it puts it back to the bottom of the queue, any way we can re-nom and keep the original position? I'm around to fix up the page even if the original editor who nominated it has gone inactive. Not sure about Dthompsen. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique: Why did you revert my failing? I failed out of good faith that the nomination has been abandoned. An abandoned nomination only pushes other submissions responses even further and expands the backlog. If this article is to be renominated, a fresh reviewer will take over and will start a new process. A fail should be kept. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AmericanAir88, I reverted it due to Elizabeth Emerson's response above, indicating that she intends to attend to this nomination. Although I think your closure was understandable, given that the nominator had not edited since December, I also think taking four days to respond to my above ping is reasonable, and warrants reopening the nomination; It is not the nominator's fault that the reviewer has not started reviewing. Dthomsen8, do you still intend to review this? If not, Semmendinger, you expressed interest in helping fix up the page. Would you be interested in reviewing it instead? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique: Thank you for understanding. Let's see if anyone responds and if no one does, a fail may be necessary. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AmericanAir88, wouldn't a fail only be appropriate if the nominator disappeared, not the reviewer? It wouldn't seem fair to penalize a nominator (and lose the spot in the queue) for a disappearing reviewer. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique: That is true, but the nominator should have been more active in trying to engage the reviewer instead of just letting this gan rot. I have placed the

Second opinion requested tag. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I'm around to help fix up. I agree it would be silly to penalize the nominator because the reviewer went inactive. Keep us in the queue for a new reviewer please. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the second opinion is being requested on whether the closure should have stuck, then my thought it that it should not have. The original query had been up under 48 hours when the nomination was failed by yet another person who had posted under 20 hours previously. A minimum of seven days is standard to allow for a response, and the nominator responded well within that guideline. Furthermore, it is still possible that the original reviewer could return. I'll be asking for a specific response from them on their talk page, but for now the nomination should remain open, awaiting either the prior reviewer or a new one: an inexperienced nominator should not be penalized here. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Came here seeing the 2nd opinion tag. It really seems like a 4th or 5th opinion. If I don't hear objection I propose the following: mark this page as archived. Remove the nom and let the bot update nominations. Reinstate the nomination with the original date but as unreviewed and let the bot pick that back-up. In this way it'll stay at the top of the list, which only seems fair since there seem to be editors willing to do work on it, but also reflects that no review has yet been undertaken. Ping @BlueMoonset, Semmendinger, AmericanAir88, Usernameunique, and Elizabeth Emerson:. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, yours was so sensible a suggestion that I ran with it: the GA nominee template on the article talk page has been adjusted so that the nomination has been put back into the pool for a new reviewer with no loss in the seniority, and this page is no longer the active review and can be archived at any time. (It's really a single-step process; the bot can handle itself with no renomination necessary.) I didn't want to archive it in case there are strong objections to my having done so, or people wish to make further comments prior to archiving. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, the bot is finicky so I generally try to go slow with it but am glad it was easy enough to do. Thanks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice solution, thanks! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]