Talk:Goodbye to Language/GA2

GA Reassessment[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hello, this article recently failed a GA assessment with no time allowed to address the reviewers comments before it was closed out. The reviewer claimed that the article contained original research because the lead and the synopsis contained no references. I began to explain that this is an inaccurate assessment, but would rather just start over ionstead of interacting with that reviewer. The reviewer also claimed that the article contained a lot of trivial information without being very specific about what they mean by that. Previously the article recieved a Peer review and passed a "Did you know?..." assessment without any such issues being commented upon. Basically I'd like a new assessment.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the lead and plot per MOS:LEAD and WP:FILMPLOT respectively, Deoliveirafan. However, I think JohnGormleyJG was very specific about the trivial stuff; he said, "The part references to other works are is too trivial. That whole paragraph should not be included as it is not encyclopedic enough. See WP:IINFO." And no one mentioned i before? I'm quite sure Tezero did: "A general theme I'm noticing is that the article seems unusually detailed - do we really need five paragraphs on the works referenced in this film?". And I agree with them. On a side note, I'd say DYK review is not a good parameter. While they do copyvio reviews, spotcheck sources, and check size, content itself is not really a matter to pass a DYK... Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough, that "spot on" assessment was mentioned before. However I do have reasonable arguments about why these paragraphs should be kept and I don't think that it would be unheard of for me to voice these arguments instead of having them abruptly shot down. Please be fair, this boils down to an over anxious reviewer trying to get as many submissions to some sort of pointless GA cup competition and failing to be aware of some of the most basic GA criteria. I have ever reason to be annoyed right now. This was not a good review by an experienced reviewer.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on this particular page I was merely explaining why I was requesting a speedy reassessment, not requesting a discussion of the request. I think it would be more constructive of you to use this page for an actual review.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deoliveirafan, since this was originally your GAN, while you can open a reassessment it has to be a community assessment, because an individual assessment needs to be opened by someone who is not a major contributor to the article. (The person who opens an individual GAR is responsible for reviewing it, and that can't be you.) Also, I see only one edit from you on Wikipedia (August 26) since July 11. I'm going to close this, since either a community reassessment or a completely new GAN is the appropriate step here; I'd recommend the latter per the instructions on WP:GAR: However, it is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review; it is usually simpler to renominate it. If some time has lapsed since a delisting or fail it is better to renominate. It's now well over two months; when you return, I suggest trying the GAN, once you've dealt with any relevant issues from the original review and the discussion above. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]