Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Fire (Kittie album)/1
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
@GAR Me and the GA reviewer fell out and although some substantial changes to the article were made during the review, I do not consider it properly finished. I recently asked the reviewer to fail the review so it could be reviewed by someone else, whilst referring them to that review (I was fine with waiting), but they have decided to list it instead.
I feel bad about this because to me, the review makes it appear like I wore down the reviewer just so they would list it when the main issue we conflicted over was formatting issues that I felt were detrimental to the article's quality, and a lack of comment on the article's content. (we had clashed over similar issues before.)
So in listing this article for Good Article Reassessment, I'm looking to finish the job/review on a better note/in better faith. Per the previous reviewer, issues that were not addressed before its listing include:
- Copyright vio
- Original search
- Sources,
- Check the reliability of unlinked sources
- Check if the Cite highlighter script recognize them
- If the script doesn't, check if they were cited, mentioned or referenced by any reliable media publication
- Social media is not a source unless stated otherwise
You can (and should) also refer back to the original review: PLEASE comment if you agree on comments brought up by the previous reviewer that should be implemented, because I don't know if I was wrong in rejecting his suggestions in the way that I did.
Thank you. Chchcheckit (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)