Talk:Somebody That I Used to Know/GA2
GA Reassessment edit
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Mostly procedural. I feel bad doing this, but I saw the first review for this and it really did not seem like much of a review at all. While I am sure that Cmbcmb999 was acting in good faith by reviewing the article, s/he has only 48 edits to articlespace out of 139 total—not an experienced editor at all. I don't mean to WP:BITE here, but I'm not convinced that Cmb really knows what "good" content looks like. If this had been a more thorough review, I'd be less inclined to bring this up, but it seems that Cmb gave the article a quick once-over and judged it "good" without a real understanding of the process. This article is a strong candidate, IMO, but it deserves a closer look than was given there. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ok. I thought the same as you. I've reviewed lots of articles but, as I cannot review my own articles, i said nothing. Please write anything Cmb had missed and i'll fix it. I'm the major contributor and the nominator. —Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 22:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, I had been going more for "what does someone else (not me) think?"; I don't think I followed the right procedure here. I've logged over 11K contribs over the past few years, and this whole article reviewing thing is still a bit complicated for me (hence my scepticism of the original review). The instructions on the WP:GAR page didn't help me much either. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the GA criteria is a bit slight. I think you've checked it before. Anyway, I know your intentions are good; i hpe it still meets the criteria. =). —Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 22:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have looked over the article and see no reason to delist. It appears to meet the criteria. I fixed one dead link. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the GA criteria is a bit slight. I think you've checked it before. Anyway, I know your intentions are good; i hpe it still meets the criteria. =). —Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 22:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, I had been going more for "what does someone else (not me) think?"; I don't think I followed the right procedure here. I've logged over 11K contribs over the past few years, and this whole article reviewing thing is still a bit complicated for me (hence my scepticism of the original review). The instructions on the WP:GAR page didn't help me much either. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think you should at least notify the reviewer so that he/she can give reasons why he/she passed the article to GA. I know it was explained above on the review but it looks like a summary to me. --85.201.45.228 (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)