Talk:Pulp Fiction/GA4
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jburlinson (talk · contribs) 00:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll be happy to review this article. I'm sorry there's been over a month's long wait. After a quick once-over, it looks very good and I don't anticipate serious problems. I'll be reading it more carefully and probably making minor changes (e.g. typos, minor wording, grammar, etc.) as I go. If anyone has any problems with these changes, just revert as necessary or otherwise let me know. I'll put all my more substantial comments, if there are any, in one of the standard templates for GA reviewing. I should be finished within 7 days; at least, that's what I'll shoot for. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this article. Please let me know if you have questions or comments.--Jburlinson (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- I say please don't continue the review and quick-fail it instead; the article still needs some c/e, there are a few dead links, and the nominator has not contributed significantly to the article. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- You may have a point. On a little closer inspection, it does appear that some of the issues raised in previous GA reviews have not yet been addressed. While I may not personally agree with all of the objections raised by other reviewers, I still feel some duty to respect their judgments and would be disinclined totally to dismiss them. It's not necessary for the nominator to have been a major contributor to the article -- it is preferable, though, that the nominator be familiar enough with the subject matter to be in a position to address concerns. In addition, the nominator and/or other editors should be willing to engage in a good faith conversation about the article and consider addressing issues identified by myself and/or other reviewers. Is that a fair expectation on my part? If so, I'm willing to put in the time to give it more of a review than a quick fail.--Jburlinson (talk) 02:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- It looks like almost all the concerns raised in previous reviews from 2012 are still active. In other words, it appears that there has been little to no effort to address long-standing issues. Although there does not seem to be a blazing edit war at the moment, there is still input from other editors that failure to address, or at least discuss, earlier concerns is a significant problem. I have contacted the nominator and received no response. I'll try one more time to see if the nominator is willing to address pre-existing issues and if I get no response within 2 days, I will quick fail the nomination. If any other editor is willing to engage in a good faith effort to resolve the outstanding concerns from previous GA reviews, I will proceed with a more thorough review. There is a lot of good information in the article and it would be a benefit to wikipedia to have it elevated to GA. Please let me know within the next two days if anyone is prepared to work with me on dealing with issues. Thanks.--Jburlinson (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Since I've received no response from the nominator and no other editors have indicated a willingness at this time to address pre-existing concerns, I'm going to quick fail the nomination for now. I'd like to urge any future nominators to address concerns raised in this and previous reviews. This doesn't mean that a nominator has to agree with any or all of the concerns, but it would be good if editors were willing to discuss on the article's talk page. I believe the article is of high quality and would like to see it reach GA status, but that can only happen if the concerns of reviewers are treated seriously. Best wishes to all who've contributed and, if things change, I'll be happy to give a GA review another shot.--Jburlinson (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)