Talk:Hamnet Shakespeare/GA2

GA Review

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

I think it ungentlemanly and unsportsmanlike to insult and dismiss me because you're not getting what you want, and then renominate the article while I get a few hours sleep. Many GA articles FAIL a review because they are slight or undeveloped. However, that is not the case here because everything about the subject of the article can be printed on the head of a pin. There is simply nothing more to tell the reader. Hamnet Shakespeare is exhausted in this article and everything about the boy can be contained within one or two sentences. I would like to know where he rests and I think the article should mention that. "His cause of death is unknown; his mortal remains rest in Holy Trinity Church (or whatever)." I also think the caption in the image could be expanded. What is that? A church record? Please tell us. While these are a couple of things I'd like to know, I can't fail the article because they are unanswered. This article belongs in a larger one about "Shakespeare's children" and I will develop such an article when things simmer down and I find the time to put pen to paper. This article meets the GAC: accetable prose, reliable sources, no edit warring, blahblahblah. GAC asks for nothing more. PASS. ShaShaJackson (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to withdraw. You are not being constructive, and you're comments are insulting. I'm concerned about the review you'll be giving Silver Age of Comics. I will say that you seem to be intelligent, and that if you channeled your energy differently, you could probably be a good GA reviewer. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure your comments belong in this review, Peregrine. They should be sent to my talk page. Very rude of you. In listing an article for GA we cannot pick and chose the reviewer. I've learned a good deal reviewing Hamnet Shakespeare. Take a look at GAC. It doesn't ask for much more than can be mastered by a high school kid within moments. In a quick glance at your article, you have nothing to worry about. ShaShaJackson (talk) 08:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not worried about what you're saying (mostly), but in how you're saying it. Because we interact online, with text only, we need to bend over backwards to be nice. There's no body language, so it's easy to take comments the wrong way. I've requested further input at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Problematic review, and I apologize for not providing you with a link earlier. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I dig. If you think I need to remove myself from your article I will do so. I only took it on because I have a vast collection of Golden and Silver Age comics and have written here and there on such. However, that is probably not sufficient reason for taking on the article. Someone with no knowledge of comics should be able to review the article because the WP doesn't ask a reviewer to be familiar with an article's subject. ShaShaJackson (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the tone of you comment. If you want to recuse, that's fine. If you still want to review it, that's totally fine too. All I want from my reviews is a thorough and somewhat harsh critique of the article, so that it can be the best it can be. (Without going for featured article status. You're problems with Hamnet would have been valid complaints that probably would have prevented it from attaining FA status. Still, FA is very different from GA).

If you do decide to review Silver Age of Comics, I will say that I plan on expanding the lede and removing 3-4 unreferenced sentences. I have my own running tab of what makes a GA, and those are the two glaring errors I feel I need to fix. Hopefully you'll find more problems if you review it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 09:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)