Talk:Huntington's disease/GA4

Request for new GA review

I believe that, since "prior suggestions not implemented" isn't a quick-fail criterion, the page should have remained at GAC until reviewed.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. I reviewed this article in August 2008 and failed it when the editors were unable to implement all the recommendations in time. As is clear on your talkpage, Leevanjackson is not yet ready for another GAN. You are causing unnecessary chaos by insisting that your review is actioned. JFW | T@lk 21:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"My review is actioned"? I think you misphrased your response, as there as obviously been little action here.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, in Talk:Huntington's disease/GA2 I didn't quick fail the article. I regular failed it. I agree with JFW that this GAR is counterproductive, but I appreciate that the reverting has stopped. Goodone121, can you clarify which problems outlined in the second GAN review you don't feel are important to resolve and why? Thanks much, delldot on a public computer talk 03:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I listed.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 01:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which you shouldn't have, because nobody has actually reviewed the article. You cannot list by default. Either conduct a proper review, or withdraw this request. I have left a message on your userpage clarifying why I have undone your actions. JFW | T@lk 19:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template said that the initiating editor should close, and no, I am not using this as a "backdoor". I am simply adhering to policy. BTW, I reverted .Bettering the Wiki (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GAR is for articles that are presently GA but need to be reassessed in view of major changes. It is not the way to get an article to GA status without due process. Your activities have been called "disruptive" by several editors and I would strongly counsel you to stop changing the status of this article. It puts contributors off making any significant contributions, and I believe you are thereby interfering with its improvement. JFW | T@lk 14:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this GAR is now archived and Goodone121 has been blocked for using it as a tool in disruptive activities. The article is well on its way to becoming a good article, but that would be despite (rather than because of) this contributor's effort. JFW | T@lk 18:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, again, have reverted. JFW, you may override me with a Community WP:GAR, which I reccomend. If you do, I will gladly back down.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing no such thing. You have been asked to leave this article alone, by myself and various previously uninvolved people. GAR, as has been explained to you, is not a way to have articles listed. It is a way to get articles delisted because they are listed as GA and shouldn't. JFW | T@lk 05:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]