| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
Greetings fellow reviewers. FYI, I'm chucking this one at you with an eye for a future FAC; at first glance, I think, it's 1, 2, 3 & 4 compliant, but I'm under no illusions that it's ready as it is. It's received a very good—if I can say—GA review from User:Catrìona, but there's always going to be room for improvement, and more eyes is a bonus; so if anyone can suggest any tweaks to structure or prose, or additional sourcing I may have missed, I'd be extremely grateful for any input. Thanking you all in advance! Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 11:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Serial Number, is there any reason that you closed the previous review only to open another one immediately? Catrìona (talk) 11:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Catrìona: Yes, sorry about your extra ping. I made a fatal error in advertising the PR to WP:IR, whom I supposed would want articles within the project-scope to be promoted. However, it transpires that the project attracts nutters. Thus, a clean start. ——SerialNumber54129 12:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129: If you're going to dismiss constructive criticism on the use of quote boxes and the use of language as the work of "nutters" (and pinging Jonesey95 and Mabuska that you're calling them nutters, too), then you're wasting your own and everybody else's time by continuing with this process. I advise you to close this PR now and see if you can resolve the real problems that have been identified by addressing them on the article talk page. Scolaire (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Also pinging Catrìona, because I'm interested in her take on this. Scolaire (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- No, merely a reflection on some of the history I see in the talk page: as I said, "attracts" nutters, not necessarilly "full of", and not directed at any of the pinged members...apologies for lack of clarity. ——SerialNumber54129 14:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Why was it a "fatal error" to advertise there, then? And why was it necessary to close the PR and re-open it, without notifying contributors, if the editors who responded weren't nutters? And why are you obviously not intending to respond to the comments that were offered? You might at least apologise, rather than pretend you didn't mean what you clearly did mean. Scolaire (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- What, you mean you want me to call members of WP:IR nutters? ;) But I can see how my original remarks could be misinterpreted. Thanks for drawing it to my attention! Happy editing, ——SerialNumber54129 14:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Why was it a "fatal error" to advertise there, then? And why was it necessary to close the PR and re-open it, without notifying contributors, if the editors who responded weren't nutters? And why are you obviously not intending to respond to the comments that were offered? You might at least apologise, rather than pretend you didn't mean what you clearly did mean. Scolaire (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- At any rate, you may be sure that nobody looking at your actions is going to want to touch your article with a barge-pole. I recommend you end this farce now, and come back when you learn the meaning of the word "collaborative". Scolaire (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
[The text below has been copied from Wikipedia:Peer review/Slovak Three/archive1, which was closed without any sort of resolution. As of this time stamp, the comments still apply. I wish you good luck with improving the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)]
Just a drive-by comment: There are two quotations that use {{quotebox}}, which is discouraged within articles. Also, they are formatted as pull quotes, but the quotations do not appear in the body of the article. I am unable to find a section of the MOS that discourages these practices, but I recall reading it somewhere. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- On that, I don't think that either blockquotes or quote boxes should be used to quote news items. For instance, if you could show that the judge used the exact words "the High Court had no jurisdiction to retrospectively adapt", etc., then it would be appropriate to use a blockquote, and attribute it to the judge. Otherwise, the extract should be paraphrased and added to article text. The same goes for "A tactic often favoured.." and "The men are accused of membership...". The use of blockquotes and similar to directly quote books or newspaper articles is really copyvio by the back door. Scolaire (talk) 11:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
[end of copied text]
So in the previous request there were only three responses, one each from three different editors including myself, and responses had valid points. Nothing too major that couldn't be fixed or amended. Instead you close it, start a new one calling us nutters and this time avoid notifying a specific WikiProject group for what I can only assume is to dodge any further valid criticism on your article, which is tantamount to trying to game the system. I already stated I would recommend the article is a B at best. Definitely not a GA never mind a FGA. Mabuska (talk) 13:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- I would also say that Catrìona should not have resorted to simply assuming good faith that every thing was all correct and good with the sources etc. in that GA review. I could accept that for a C or B rated article but a GA should be thoroughly reviewed in all aspects. Mabuska (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)