| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because a listing was attempted way back in around 2012 and I would like to help improve this article.
Thanks, Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, Emir of Wikipedia, Could you please confirm that you have access to all (or the majority) of the books used as references so that you'd be able to address any questions raised, please? I ask as I see you have made very little in the way of edits to the article. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- I unfortunately don't have the books on hand, but I will check if I can access them via other methods. I will address any questions raised that I can solve, but as this is just a peer review and not a good article review I don't expect this to be a definitive version of the article. I have made little in the way of edits to the article currently, but I chose to pick up the review as it appears to have been attempted to have been created despite not being completed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- The article has already been reviewed and is considered a "Good Article". Of course, all article improvements are always welcome but please could you tell me if the intention is to take this to FA or ....? A full peer review would normally be the stepping stone to FA and I am concerned as to whether the expertise to do that is available. The use of the wording
"this is just a peer review"
does lead me to wonder why the peer review has been initiated (rather than asking an admin to delete the previous, possibly erroneous, attempt). SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)- While the article has been identified as a "Good Article" the criteria states, that edit warring is an immediate failure. I think the fact that it has been put under full protection due to edit warring shows the questionably of this. Furthermore the difference between the GA reviewed version and the current version shows that article improvements. The intention is not currently to take it to an FA, but rather just to cement its status a GA despite the edit warring and create a consensus version. I would also like to gain skills on working on improving an article outside of my usual spheres of interest. I can understand your concern about my level of expertise, but I am not in a rush to complete this. If a more senior editor of this article does have a qualm with my review and it probably lack of hastiness after they I have actually gone through listening to some comments about the article, then I will politely move on. However please do not act like a WP:OWNER without even seeing if I am able to bring a single useful or helpful improvement to the article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I find much of the comment above difficult to parse. For instance
"If a more senior editor of this article does have a qualm with my review and it probably lack of hastiness after they I have actually gone through listening to some comments about the article, then I will politely move on."
; I am, however, able to easily identify the casting of aspersions and [false] accusations of ownership made. Rest assured I am also fully conversant with the GA criteria. Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I find much of the comment above difficult to parse. For instance
- While the article has been identified as a "Good Article" the criteria states, that edit warring is an immediate failure. I think the fact that it has been put under full protection due to edit warring shows the questionably of this. Furthermore the difference between the GA reviewed version and the current version shows that article improvements. The intention is not currently to take it to an FA, but rather just to cement its status a GA despite the edit warring and create a consensus version. I would also like to gain skills on working on improving an article outside of my usual spheres of interest. I can understand your concern about my level of expertise, but I am not in a rush to complete this. If a more senior editor of this article does have a qualm with my review and it probably lack of hastiness after they I have actually gone through listening to some comments about the article, then I will politely move on. However please do not act like a WP:OWNER without even seeing if I am able to bring a single useful or helpful improvement to the article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- The article has already been reviewed and is considered a "Good Article". Of course, all article improvements are always welcome but please could you tell me if the intention is to take this to FA or ....? A full peer review would normally be the stepping stone to FA and I am concerned as to whether the expertise to do that is available. The use of the wording
- I unfortunately don't have the books on hand, but I will check if I can access them via other methods. I will address any questions raised that I can solve, but as this is just a peer review and not a good article review I don't expect this to be a definitive version of the article. I have made little in the way of edits to the article currently, but I chose to pick up the review as it appears to have been attempted to have been created despite not being completed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hopefully an admin will archive this rather than the speedy deletion requested by Emir of Wikipedia? It may be necessary to refer to this discussion in the future. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Sagaciousphil: Erm. Can I ask why you would prefer that this be archived? I don't see any constructive feedback on the article that could be useful let alone necessary to refer to in the future. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Accusations have been made and aspersions cast against me; I may find it necessary to refer to these at some point in the future hence I would prefer it is archived to enable them to be easily accessible. SagaciousPhil - Chat 22:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- What accusations have been made or aspersions cast against you, particularly ones that you mind find in necessary to refer to in the future? I respectfully disagree but I will archive this myself then. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
"please do not act like a WP:OWNER without even seeing if I am able to bring a single useful or helpful improvement to the article."
for starters plus other comments made re: edit warring above. Please do not in future try to hide inappropriate comments by seeking to have pages deleted. Thanks. Again comments like"... ones that you mind find in necessary to refer to in the future?"
is difficult to parse. Anyway, I'm done here. SagaciousPhil - Chat 22:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- What accusations have been made or aspersions cast against you, particularly ones that you mind find in necessary to refer to in the future? I respectfully disagree but I will archive this myself then. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Accusations have been made and aspersions cast against me; I may find it necessary to refer to these at some point in the future hence I would prefer it is archived to enable them to be easily accessible. SagaciousPhil - Chat 22:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)