GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Looks interesting, I will be happy to take this. I will post all my comments in a week. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Dear Sainsf, thank you for your interest in helping this article reach GA status. It's been quite a while since i nominated it. Since then i have successfully nominated E. A. Thompson. That process greatly improved my insight into making an article reach GA status. Looking at the article Wusun now, i see that there is a lot of potential for improvement. It would safe you a lot of time and effort if those improvements are made before the reviewing process begins. I would therefore appreciate it if you could postpone the review for a while, until i have time to work on it. Krakkos (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for notifying me Krakkos. That sounds like a great plan :) Ping me whenever you are done but since this is a GA review it can't wait too long. So unless you're too busy at the moment try to improve the article as much as you can in the next week or two at most. It's okay even if not everything has been improved, we can work through it together in the review process. Cheers, and stay safe. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 00:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
@Krakkos: Any update? The review page shouldn't be inactive for more than a week. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Sainsf: I'm sorry for not having updated the article by now. I have realized that there is quite a lot of work that should be done before the review begins, and I'm not in a position to do that work right now. I recommend that the review be put on hold or closed. I will probably renominate it in the near future. When that time comes I'd be happy to work with you on the review. Krakkos (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Krakkos: No problem :) If you ask me, I would say this article can easily qualify for GA with a bit more work. But if you plan to improve this further anyway then why not do that and have the whole of your work reviewed by someone later? I leave it to you to decide what I should do with the nom, as I am okay with either working with what it is right now or failing for a renom (you can ping me if you want me to review it, shouldn't be an issue as I am uninvolved). But won't recommend leaving this open for too long while you are working on the article. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 19:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Sainsf: I think failing for a renom is the right option. There are still plenty of improvements that i would like to make :D When that is done i will renominate it. Cheers. Krakkos (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Okay. Best of luck :) Sainsf (talk · contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Sainsf: I think failing for a renom is the right option. There are still plenty of improvements that i would like to make :D When that is done i will renominate it. Cheers. Krakkos (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Krakkos: No problem :) If you ask me, I would say this article can easily qualify for GA with a bit more work. But if you plan to improve this further anyway then why not do that and have the whole of your work reviewed by someone later? I leave it to you to decide what I should do with the nom, as I am okay with either working with what it is right now or failing for a renom (you can ping me if you want me to review it, shouldn't be an issue as I am uninvolved). But won't recommend leaving this open for too long while you are working on the article. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 19:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)