Jump to content

Talk:I Knew You Were Trouble/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 16:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This should be a quick fail. Nominator is not a main contributor of the article and neither did any work to improve it, just minor edits here and there as evident from here. Also, I'm sure you can see why this article is just not ready like at all. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 17:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I fail to see why not being a main contributor of an article is a problem; I've had other GA nominations where I haven't been a major contributor. Likewise, I am perfectly happy to put in work during the nomination; so a quickfail is entirely unnecessary. Talk:Paul Robinson (footballer born 1979)/GA1 is an example of that. At the very worst, IAR and allow me to work this... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest, I had seen a lot wrong with this article, that is why I chose to review. But as you're not the main contributor, and as IndianBio has mentioned, you have contributed nothing. You say you've nominated other articles that you've had no involvement in, and that is not fair. Because you are claiming the credit for someone elses hard work. To be honest, I think that you should ask me to fail it as a withdrawal, you should then work on it yourself, and then nominate it. Me listing everything that is wrong, which is a lot, is pointless. I might as well as doing everything myself instead of listing it all for you to do. I strongly advise that you ask for this to be withdrawn, which results in a fail, and work on it by yourself first. Look at other GAs, even FAs, to see how music articles should be done.  — AARONTALK 22:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.