Talk:Rahul Gandhi/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk · contribs) 01:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. I will list the issues within 24 hours.Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Here are the issues:
- I suggest you put citations after punctuation where possible.
- "Until 2006", shouldn't there be a comma after that
- One sentence remains uncited.
- "In an attempt to prove himself thus, ...". Is the "thus" necessary? Could the whole sentence be slightly reworded?
- Some of the references need better formatting. For example, missing commas, missing periods, and incorrect punctuation.
--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
@Tomandjerry211 (alt): Just a suggestion. Could you please point out the sentences you refer to more clearly, possibly along with the section of the article to which they belong, so that the nominator can work on them more easily? And are these the only issues? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@Tomandjerry211: Nearly a month-and-a-half since this review began. This might need to be failed. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 12:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: Thought we need your help here. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 15:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sainsf, I posted to Tomandjerry211's talk page several days ago, to see whether he wanted to continue the review or have the nomination put back into the reviewing pool, but he hasn't edited Wikipedia since then. Some of the issues listed could easily have been found by searching; there's only one occurrence of "attempt" in the article, and "Until 2006" is easily located. The paragraph with the latter, though, needs more work than was asked for, and the third Formative years paragraph also needs work. Also, I don't see any post to Royroydeb's talk page by the bot when this review started, so I think it makes sense to ping RRD now for a response; if there is none, then failing this is an option. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's been a long time since I posted this review, way over the required seven days, so might as well fail it for now. Renominate any time you want.Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Tomandjerry211 (alt): Other than the unresponsiveness, per what criteria is this failed here? I'm confused. Could that be pointed out so that anybody renominating has a clear picture as to what to do? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- I am as curious as Ugog Nizdast. This sudden failing with such a few comments (sorry but this might appear like an incomplete review) does appear weird, please clearly give all the points that have to be worked upon before renomination. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 02:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sudden failing? The review was posted on March 17; this is April 30, and RRD was pinged two weeks ago yet did nothing. Although it isn't the best review, there were some definite issues listed, even if seemingly minor, along with some general ones; although they might not have required more than a couple of hours work, the nominator didn't do anything for over six weeks. It should have been failed weeks ago. If the nominator wants more details at this point (it would have been easy to request them any time these past weeks), a peer review is the way to go. There are also a bunch of "citation needed" templates and an "undue" template to take care of, and the article cannot be passed with them in place. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- I might have been wrong about the "sudden", it escaped me perhaps because I was not so satisfied with the review. Yes, the article deserves a good peer review before it is renominated. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 04:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sudden failing? The review was posted on March 17; this is April 30, and RRD was pinged two weeks ago yet did nothing. Although it isn't the best review, there were some definite issues listed, even if seemingly minor, along with some general ones; although they might not have required more than a couple of hours work, the nominator didn't do anything for over six weeks. It should have been failed weeks ago. If the nominator wants more details at this point (it would have been easy to request them any time these past weeks), a peer review is the way to go. There are also a bunch of "citation needed" templates and an "undue" template to take care of, and the article cannot be passed with them in place. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- I am as curious as Ugog Nizdast. This sudden failing with such a few comments (sorry but this might appear like an incomplete review) does appear weird, please clearly give all the points that have to be worked upon before renomination. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 02:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sainsf, I posted to Tomandjerry211's talk page several days ago, to see whether he wanted to continue the review or have the nomination put back into the reviewing pool, but he hasn't edited Wikipedia since then. Some of the issues listed could easily have been found by searching; there's only one occurrence of "attempt" in the article, and "Until 2006" is easily located. The paragraph with the latter, though, needs more work than was asked for, and the third Formative years paragraph also needs work. Also, I don't see any post to Royroydeb's talk page by the bot when this review started, so I think it makes sense to ping RRD now for a response; if there is none, then failing this is an option. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)