Talk:History of Sega/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: Indrian (talk · contribs) 00:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Will review in tandem with the Sega article. Comments should begin in the near future. Indrian (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- Couple of months gone. Is this able to start soon? AIRcorn (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- 1) The review has already begun, because we are sorting out the Sega article at the same time and comments have begun over there. 2) The nominator knew up front this would not be resolved quickly and still wanted me as the reviewer. If he becomes impatient, he is more than capable of pestering me himself, as we have a long-established working relationship on the project. Indrian (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Indrian couldn’t have said it better. I’m doing my best to be patient and let him do his due diligence; on top of his reviewing skills, he is a subject-matter expert in this area. Since I do have full intentions of taking this and Sega to FAC, and I have previously asked a copyeditor he and I have both worked with to get the prose in its best shape possible, Indrian’s particular skills are worth the wait. If, say, six months go by and I don’t hear from him, then I might seek out a new reviewer, but I understand his limitations on activity as I have them myself. Red Phoenix talk 00:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- I feel this completely misses the point of nominating articles for GA review. Reviews should not be booked months ahead by editors who have working relationships. GA works best when you are looking for an outside opinion on your article. If the aim is to collaborate and go for FA then the whole GA process can be skipped as it seems kind of redundant in this case. AIRcorn (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- That's not quite how this happened - I didn't solicit Indrian other than to mention this article to him while he was already working on the GA review for Sega, since this is a spinout of that article. I had no contact to seek his opinion specifically before that. That being said, Indrian has reviewed articles I have worked on before, and he decided he wanted to be the one to review these two. His is an outside opinion that I did not ask for specifically, and this review was not booked "months ahead". I'm anxious for it to get done, no doubt. I nominated the article when I had completed work on it and have been awaiting feedback (though a lot of it has been duplicative of what's happening at Talk:Sega/GA1, and I've shared those changes to this article too). The fact is, while I do want it to get done, having worked with Indrian before, I am willing to be patient because I know what I'm getting. Red Phoenix talk 00:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- I feel this completely misses the point of nominating articles for GA review. Reviews should not be booked months ahead by editors who have working relationships. GA works best when you are looking for an outside opinion on your article. If the aim is to collaborate and go for FA then the whole GA process can be skipped as it seems kind of redundant in this case. AIRcorn (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Indrian couldn’t have said it better. I’m doing my best to be patient and let him do his due diligence; on top of his reviewing skills, he is a subject-matter expert in this area. Since I do have full intentions of taking this and Sega to FAC, and I have previously asked a copyeditor he and I have both worked with to get the prose in its best shape possible, Indrian’s particular skills are worth the wait. If, say, six months go by and I don’t hear from him, then I might seek out a new reviewer, but I understand his limitations on activity as I have them myself. Red Phoenix talk 00:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- 1) The review has already begun, because we are sorting out the Sega article at the same time and comments have begun over there. 2) The nominator knew up front this would not be resolved quickly and still wanted me as the reviewer. If he becomes impatient, he is more than capable of pestering me himself, as we have a long-established working relationship on the project. Indrian (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.