Talk:Whataboutism/GA1
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Sagecandor in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Binksternet (talk · contribs) 21:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Starting review. Binksternet (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Not listed. The first thing I noticed was that the article is not stable, so it fails number 5 of the six good article criteria. The talk page is currently hosting a heated discussion about whether Trump should be included, and the article itself is subject to many changes and some reversions. The reversions are not enough to count as edit warring to force a "quick fail" but the vehement viewpoints expressed on the talk page are still unsettled, threatening large-scale disturbance of the article text. I'm stopping the review at this point, leaving for the next reviewer any serious look at the other five GA criteria. Binksternet (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. It was decidedly unwise to submit such a controversial article to GA review; don't know who did that, but sorry for wasting your time. — JFG talk 23:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Binksternet you are not qualified as a reviewer of this article. As stated under WP:GAREV:
- "To review an article you must:
- Not be the nominator nor have made significant contributions to the article prior to the review" (emphasis added)
- A review of the talk page and history reveals that you have made significant contributions to the article. DeadEyeSmile (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right. But if somebody immediately resubmits this article for GAN, it will have the exact same issue that I pointed out, and the exact same result. Binksternet (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- That is not the point. The point is that you are not qualified to review it and should not have done so. DeadEyeSmile (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- What do you think should be done now? Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@Binksternet:Comment: I agree you should not have done the review, as an admittedly involved party. But it's too late now, so what's done is done. Everyone, please just leave it now for a while. Thanks! Sagecandor (talk) 03:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)