| Revision as of 08:39, 26 August 2012 editMark Miller (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers52,993 edits →GA Review← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:52, 26 August 2012 edit undoMark Miller (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers52,993 edits →GA ReviewNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| ::::::::I strongly disagree. There is no mention of "uninvolved editor" in the criteria to review for listing to GA. There is no criteria mentioned at all for talk page discussion limitation. Integrity? So this is assuming bad faith on my part? I don't see being one of ten editors as significant. I am not the major contributor to the article. My contributions are a small percentage of the overall history of the article.--] (]) 07:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC) | ::::::::I strongly disagree. There is no mention of "uninvolved editor" in the criteria to review for listing to GA. There is no criteria mentioned at all for talk page discussion limitation. Integrity? So this is assuming bad faith on my part? I don't see being one of ten editors as significant. I am not the major contributor to the article. My contributions are a small percentage of the overall history of the article.--] (]) 07:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::I don't see where I am being directed to any guideline to show this as an integrity issue. I am being point blank told my integrity is in question. If this is so and I am to withdraw, I need this to be directly stated in direct terms and how I violated these terms. What I see on ] only states ''"..any registered user can review: multiple votes, consensus building, and committees are not required."''. It says about reviewers "A reviewer should be able to read the article critically and apply the Good article criteria fairly." yet no one is demonstrating how I would not be applying criteria fairly or how guideline for reviewer is being violated. I can't help but wonder if this is just a sort of misinterpretation of the guidelines that has simply been fostered for some reason or another for a while, but I don't see the violation or line I am crossing to have my integrity questioned...or worse, that I am damaging the integrity of the GAN process.--] (]) 08:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC) | :::::::::I don't see where I am being directed to any guideline to show this as an integrity issue. I am being point blank told my integrity is in question. If this is so and I am to withdraw, I need this to be directly stated in direct terms and how I violated these terms. What I see on ] only states ''"..any registered user can review: multiple votes, consensus building, and committees are not required."''. It says about reviewers "A reviewer should be able to read the article critically and apply the Good article criteria fairly." yet no one is demonstrating how I would not be applying criteria fairly or how guideline for reviewer is being violated. I can't help but wonder if this is just a sort of misinterpretation of the guidelines that has simply been fostered for some reason or another for a while, but I don't see the violation or line I am crossing to have my integrity questioned...or worse, that I am damaging the integrity of the GAN process.--] (]) 08:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC) | ||
| This is the policy as it is stated on the main GA nomination page: "'''ou cannot review an article if you''' are the nominator or '''have made significant contributions to it prior to the review'''. | |||
| I read this policy to mean, literally what it says. "Prior to the review", limits further what "significant" means. In the past 7 days prior to this review, I have made 1 edit . That is NOT a significant amount.--] (]) 08:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:52, 26 August 2012
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk · contribs) 05:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC) I will begin review shortly.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Amadscientist, I recommend you withdraw as the reviewer. WP:GAN states that "you cannot review an article if you... have made significant contributions to it prior to the review," and the count tool identifies you as a top contributor to this article. —Eustress 05:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have only been editing the article since the 15th or 16th and count 23 edits, not amounting to a significant contribution to the article in my opinion. Edits are not additions of content and are edits to the lede for brevity, one header title that changed a few times before it settled and a few edits concerning the return of content since removed. It does not say that an editor that contributes to the article cannot review and most of my contributions are on the talk page where my main activity here has been discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- The edit counter referenced above says you have made 54 edits to the article and a whopping 276 edits to the article's talk page (the most talk page comments of any editor). Please step aside and let an uninvolved editor conduct the GAN review. —Eustress 06:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well thank you for that. But please demonstrate how this makes me a significant contributor in comparison to the other editors now. I would also request you show exactly where the definition of what "significant contributor" for a GA review is outlined.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think the definition of a significent contributor for starters would be more than 53 article edits and more than 275 talk edits. Just my 2♮. – Sir Lionel, EG 06:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- "Significance" is a relative measure, not an absolute one. Amadscientist ranks #1 in terms of talk page edits and #9 in terms of main page edits. That is significant in my opinion. Please don't misinterpret my point... I applaud Amadscientist's zeal, but an uninvolved editor is needed to ensure the integrity of the GAN review. —Eustress 07:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I fully agree that Amadscientist should step aside as the reviewer. --Rschen7754 07:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. There is no mention of "uninvolved editor" in the criteria to review for listing to GA. There is no criteria mentioned at all for talk page discussion limitation. Integrity? So this is assuming bad faith on my part? I don't see being one of ten editors as significant. I am not the major contributor to the article. My contributions are a small percentage of the overall history of the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see where I am being directed to any guideline to show this as an integrity issue. I am being point blank told my integrity is in question. If this is so and I am to withdraw, I need this to be directly stated in direct terms and how I violated these terms. What I see on Misplaced Pages:Reviewing good articles only states "..any registered user can review: multiple votes, consensus building, and committees are not required.". It says about reviewers "A reviewer should be able to read the article critically and apply the Good article criteria fairly." yet no one is demonstrating how I would not be applying criteria fairly or how guideline for reviewer is being violated. I can't help but wonder if this is just a sort of misinterpretation of the guidelines that has simply been fostered for some reason or another for a while, but I don't see the violation or line I am crossing to have my integrity questioned...or worse, that I am damaging the integrity of the GAN process.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. There is no mention of "uninvolved editor" in the criteria to review for listing to GA. There is no criteria mentioned at all for talk page discussion limitation. Integrity? So this is assuming bad faith on my part? I don't see being one of ten editors as significant. I am not the major contributor to the article. My contributions are a small percentage of the overall history of the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I fully agree that Amadscientist should step aside as the reviewer. --Rschen7754 07:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- "Significance" is a relative measure, not an absolute one. Amadscientist ranks #1 in terms of talk page edits and #9 in terms of main page edits. That is significant in my opinion. Please don't misinterpret my point... I applaud Amadscientist's zeal, but an uninvolved editor is needed to ensure the integrity of the GAN review. —Eustress 07:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think the definition of a significent contributor for starters would be more than 53 article edits and more than 275 talk edits. Just my 2♮. – Sir Lionel, EG 06:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well thank you for that. But please demonstrate how this makes me a significant contributor in comparison to the other editors now. I would also request you show exactly where the definition of what "significant contributor" for a GA review is outlined.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- The edit counter referenced above says you have made 54 edits to the article and a whopping 276 edits to the article's talk page (the most talk page comments of any editor). Please step aside and let an uninvolved editor conduct the GAN review. —Eustress 06:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have only been editing the article since the 15th or 16th and count 23 edits, not amounting to a significant contribution to the article in my opinion. Edits are not additions of content and are edits to the lede for brevity, one header title that changed a few times before it settled and a few edits concerning the return of content since removed. It does not say that an editor that contributes to the article cannot review and most of my contributions are on the talk page where my main activity here has been discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
This is the policy as it is stated on the main GA nomination page: "ou cannot review an article if you are the nominator or have made significant contributions to it prior to the review.
I read this policy to mean, literally what it says. "Prior to the review", limits further what "significant" means. In the past 7 days prior to this review, I have made 1 edit . That is NOT a significant amount.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)