About my reviews
editI think the Good Article project is one of the best initiatives on Wikipedia, so regardless of the outcome of a review, know that I think you're awesome just for working to bring an article to this point.
In reviews, I try to stick strictly to the criteria and treat the essay What the Good Article Criteria Are Not as a Bible. If I have additional suggestions, I'll try to make clear they're not needed for GA status. I pass about 75% of the articles I review. Out of those that I don't list, the most common reason is that the nominator doesn't return within a week to address the issues involved. I almost always do some minor copyediting for a review, but if I find myself correcting a number of misspellings and grammatical errors, I'll usually send the article back for more work before renomination or put it on hold for a week to see if another copyeditor can be found. If you ever have a question and want me to get back involved on an article I've reviewed, feel free to ping me.
Good Article reviews
editComplete
edit
2015
In progress
editTo start
Quickfail log
editIn addition to my full reviews, in late 2013 I began patrolling new nominations for obvious quickfails (outstanding cleanup tags, driveby nominations of unprepared work, etc.). I list these separately to avoid distorting my review total and pass-fail rate.