Talk:Habbush letter/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Well Written: Pass
Factually Accurate and Verifiable: Pass
Broad in its Coverage: Pass
Neutral:Pass
Images: Pass
Stable:Fail
FONT COLOR=DARKGREEN:Pass
FONT COLOR=ORANGE:Needs Improvement but Passed nevertheless
FONTCOLOR=RED:Failed
~Revised Good Article Review~ Happy Editing! (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit]Due to the request of a respected fellow wikipedian, Starczamora, I would like to extend my views to why I controversially failed Habbush letter which according to Starczamora under the influence bad faith. I would also like to use this opportunity to clean my name which has been left dirty by rash people who do not think before they act.
Reasons
[edit]I would like to explain in thorough detail to why the article did not passed to please Starczamora and to the people who are not contented with my review.
Reason One
[edit]The first time I took a quick glance on the said article, I thought it was worth the time to review it more thoroughly. However, the moment I scan on the history [1], it became apparent that it is a candidate of quick-fail. The dispute died on August 25,2008 due to the semi-protection that will end on September 9. The review was done on September 8,2008, one day short of the expiration date. Since the expiration date is just one day short of the review, it might have been justifiable to fail it due to the disputes that just died down because of the semi-protection.
Links Related To Reason One
[edit]- Quick [2] This is a guide on what are the first things to look on before an extensive review.
- Article History [3]
- Protection Granted [4]
Reason Two
[edit]There are a lot of unfinished business in the talk page. Most of them are according to reliability of sources and disruption.
Links Related To Reason Two
[edit]- Habbush letter Talk Page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Habbush_letter
Reason Three
[edit]Although this has not been stated on the original review, at least two(13%) of it's sources is unreliable. Unless you consider this reliable [5], then only one reference is defunct.
Links Related to Reason Three
[edit]Sidenote
[edit]Starczamora apparently must have been angry at me for defending one article against deletion. In fact he might have deliberately typed the wrong link desperately hoping that nobody notice it. Well if he accuse me of bad faith, I have the right to be suspicious of that. Well accusing me of bad faith is bad enough and now saying I did nothing even if I did a little? Even though it's just 1/8 of a normal review, its still very different from doing nothing.
Notes
[edit]This review of course is still no match to expert review, that is why I still welcome any kind of help from any decent, sensible and wikipedians who know how to respect.
Thank You Happy Editing! (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)