Jump to content

Talk:1844 United States presidential election/GA3

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 04:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello, 36hourblock. Per a request on my talk page (permanent link), I have decided to review this article. I understand that you may be dejected from earlier reviews, but I hope you will work with me to see if this can be passed. I should note, however, that I am not a period expert, so I will be reading as a layman. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On February 21, 2014, User:Adam Cuerden opined that "This is a pretty good article, and think it will pass shortly…"

A month later, still incommunicado, and having exhibited a studied indifference to his GA reviewer chores, he reports that "The article's full of poorly-introduced, poorly-explained concepts” and has “tons of problems".

As to his personal attacks against me, I'll just say that silence is the most perfect expression of contempt.

That he contacted you, Crisco, to intervene, does no credit to your reputation as an editor. Frankly, I don't have faith in your ability to handle this review objectively.

I'll be happy to work on the article with someone independent of your clique. 36hourblock (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out the actual comment is "This is a pretty good article, and think it will pass shortly, however, there are issues where background isn't explained." There were a lot of issues. You then took almost two weeks to get back to me saying you had looked at the first set of issues. I've seen people being reviewed act quickly, and move an article rapidly towards promotion when the material and research is there, but there's prose issues. However, the issues actually need dealt with, preferably before the reviewer leaves the period of relative calm he was in, and enters a busy period. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • BlueMoonset also asked me to have a look. If you think Blue is part of a "clique" with Adam, you are sadly mistaken. Blue, what do you think? We're giving 36hour a second chance, but he/she doesn't seem to be willing to take it. This article (at a glance) looks reasonably comprehensive, but there appear to be extensive issues. Some GA reviewers would simply fail the article here and now, but I don't like to do that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand: Your services as reviewers are neither needed nor welcome on this article. Why not bow out gracefully? 36hourblock (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Adam is not reviewing this article. He is defending himself against misquotation. Now, if you are unwilling to address the issues I pointed out (despite having started this review in good faith, and having suggested that we let you skip to the head of the line), then I will be forced to fail this. And, if this is nominated for GAC again, you will more likely than not be asked why you haven't addressed my comments by the new reviewer. Do you really want to wait that long? Or do you want to see if we can work together to polish this article? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 36hourblock, after you posted to my talk page about Adam's actions, I was the one who went to Crisco's page and asked for his assistance since he is an admin and one I have worked with very collegially for the past few years. I was pleasantly surprised and pleased when he offered to take on the review because you'd gotten a raw deal—my opinion was and is that he is an independent reviewer and can be counted on to review this fairly and impartially. Frankly, he's doing you a favor in taking this review immediately after Adam failed the last iteration, as he noted above. If you aren't prepared to work with him, then your nomination will be failed again due to the issues raised thus far, and if you renominate you'll go to the back of the reviewing line and can expect the process to take a very long time. Furthermore, any future reviewer will be looking at past reviews and asking you to do the work Crisco has just requested. I realize that Adam made you wait an unconscionable period of time and that's a shame, but Crisco is not Adam and is ready to work with you. I strongly recommend you buckle down and do so if you're interested in this article being listed. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buckle this. 36hourblock (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • So, in other words, you prefer I fail this and you wait in the queue for however long it takes. So be it. I strongly recommend you look into the images before nominating again. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

[edit]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Within definition (only two edits in the past month; no recent edit warring)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Pending

Comments

[edit]

====6 (images)====.

    • Per MOS:IMAGELOCATION, avoid sandwiching images. We have sandwiched images in #Whig Party convention and campaign, #Whig Party campaign tactics, #Van Buren's Hammet letter, and #James K. Polk: Dark horse.
    • In line with the above, I think this needs to have the number of images reduced by at least 5.
    • It is standard to have images positioned under the section break, not right before it. I don't see that in the MOS though, so I cannot consider that as part of the GA criteria. If you plan on going further, however...
    • I doubt there is any value in using galleries for a single image. It looks tacky with all that whitespace.

Let's get through the image review before we continue on to the remainder of the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Source review

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1844_United_States_presidential_election/GA3&oldid=1141749239"