Wikipedia:Peer review/Basil II/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I wish to state directly that the purpose of this review is for FA candidacy. I managed to get it into GA, but it was unable to pass into FA status. I was the main contributor to the article back in July of 2018, adding citations, expansion of sentences, etc. that you may view to see it for yourself, and sparked a prolonged improvement of the article by other fellow editors after its failed nomination. The main reasons of its failure were the lack of quotes on the understanding of the figure, lack of organization in the information, and just being incoherent in general. I believe that after an entire year of continuous editing by the same critics who opposed its FA candidacy, it might be ready for a renomination. However, the FAC admins wished for me to make a peer review before doing such a thing again, so I now look for advice on what this article might be missing at this time. Your ideas are greatly appreciated, and I will implement any that is stated. 20DKB03 (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Comment by CPA-5
[edit]- There is a source error in Kazhdan's source.
Hello 20DKB03 my comment is a "little major" problem if you want to nominate it to FAC. BTW we have an ARC too so if you want more tips or comments then I reckon you to nominate it for A-class. Most people do nominate it over there and they'll get progress instead of waiting months to get a reply in the peer review. After the ARC the FAC is easier to deal with. Your nomination is in my opinion well written to get an ARC without ARC it would take (mostly) longer than with ARC. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- @CPA-5: I understand, thank you. I have fixed all the issues, including another missing template that you did not state. If it is unnecessary for this article to go through peer review and instead be nominated to A status first, then it's fine if this review gets closed. I am only going by what previous reviewers have said. I am not sure if anyone else will add on to this, but judging from the delay, I doubt there would be any at this time. 20DKB03 (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)