Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Tuberculosis/archive1

Thoughts on how reviews start

This is the second FAR I've looked at and it's the second one where the article owners were not notified.

It's also the second one where the person starting the process off, did NOT do a "big review" in terms of really "this is the battle plan for the work we need to do to fix the article". No offense to the person submitting it. He is doing what is the norm here. But I don't think just pointing at it and saying it's junk, noting a few aspects is sufficient engagement. (And I agree with the base judgment that it is not compliant.) My problem is that in THEORY this process is supposed to be about wanting to save the article. Yet the person starting it off, does not do a 2-page review. Note, I'm not saying comma, by comma. But there's not even a shape for how big the task is or how to organize the work, from the nominator.) P.s. Last time I challenged this, Dana called me on it...but the nominator actually buckled down did a thorough review...and that was what was used to save the article!TCO (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)