Jump to content

Talk:Celestiial/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Before we start, this could barely be a called a "review". It is entitled "GA Pass", implying that the article was probably (or intended to be) passed before the review had begun. Nonetheless, let's what can be fixed.--Retrohead (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some small fixes, but, yet again, this "review" is littered with idiocy and bad faith. Asking for an article to be brought up to current standards is one thing, this is completely another. No, the article's certainly not perfect. You'd struggle to find any article promoted back in 2007 which was (and I will point out that, when active, Giggy was very well respected, and was a pillar of GAC for some time). I hope I will get around to cleaning up this article a little, but I am absolutely loath to do so based on your "suggestions". J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you think that. I am reassessing this article because I do not think it is according to the criteria. Call me crazy, but a page with ten "citation needed" templates certainly could not be considered a GA.--Retrohead (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we're clear- Despite the problems with the article, I do not believe that this review was created in good faith, and I think you have displayed enough significant attitude and competency problems for me to be perfectly justified in ignoring you. I am asking you now to do the decent thing and disengage. If another editor wishes to start a GA review, I have no objection. That said, I will try to find time over the coming weeks to give this article a little attention to bring it up to current standards, but I am going to be in a much better position to do that without your involvement. J Milburn (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can not disengage because this is an individual reassessment→there has to be an outcome. Again, I appologized for not informing you on the previous GAR, but this one was made without any obvious omission. I realized that mistake thanks to your "polite" comment, but I'm sure that any other reviewer would delist this article in its current state.--Retrohead (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you can disengage. I don't care what kind of assessment this is- you can disengage by just going away. Revert yourself, I'll delete the page, and if I'm lucky, I'll never bump into you again. Another way you could disengage: you could be blocked again. I noticed a gap in your relentless nonsense while you were blocked a few days ago. I guess I could hope for that to be repeated? Look, I'm sick of this nonsense. Just go away. You're not being helpful, you're just repeatedly making yourself look like a moron. J Milburn (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through the prose, and summa summarum, it does not fulfill the first three criteria. It has many "cn" templates (indicating there might be WP:OR), a few aberrations from the manual style of writing→WP:WEASEL, and contains sentences that are not skillfully worded. Aside the prejudice you might be feeling towards me, I am always open for a collaboration. Call me if you need help in getting the article back in shape. Everything the best and carry on.--Retrohead (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]