Talk:Esophagus/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Right, I'll take a look at this one - will make straightforward copyedits as I go (please correct me if I accidentally change the meaning) and list queries below: cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd switch Barrett's and O. cancer sections around to make it more hierarchical in severity.


 * You don't want a single sentence para in the lead. Looks weird - either tack it on to the precedding or rearrange


 * Ditto any other single sentence paras.


 * No section on traumatic esophageal tear or rupture (e.g. from recurrent vomiting)


 * Have a look at Esophageal disease as it is just a list and double check what's covered and what's not. The main article is not huge and can accommodate more material easily.

More later

Withdrawal
Hello,, I am withdrawing this nomination.
 * 1) I am really not feeling up to taking any more criticism. I know that this may seem like I am not "tough mutta", but having been what feels like harrassed for 15 days straight from GAN to GAN, as documented at the AN/I, but I do not want to be subjected again to an intensive and grilling process without any ability to compromise where I am personally responsible for the content of the articles, held to subjective standards, treated excessively harshly and not in good faith, and am still upset by what I feel has been a condescending and demeaning treatment by other users.
 * 2) Based on the history of my current GANs, the articles are liable to be rearranged and the prose substantially re-written before, during, or after the GAN. As this is the case, I see no reason to invest any energy in even superficially addressing concerns.
 * 3) As you know, a user made a significant number of edits during the nomination period and I feel I cannot and will not be responsible for the article and prose concerns, especially when I am simultaneously accused of WP:OWN.
 * 4) Lastly, there seems to be a lot of 'mission creep' in my last 3 reviews. Good articles are reviewed against six relatively specific criteria. There are subjective concerns reviewers would like addressed, minor additions to areas that already satisfy the GA criteria, and then major comments relating to an article's suitability. Often these are grouped together. I will try and ask my future GA reviewers to consider this and distinguish between these.

I am exhausted and disheartened and would like to wash my hands of this process. I have left a message on your talk page and am disheartened to see you referring to my previous GAs as "needing fixing" and characterising me as upset because of reviewers having "manner which annoys the writer" (User_talk:Casliber).

I don't expect you or any other users to agree with me or understand these reasons. I am not willing to invest any more personal energy in the GAN process. I will also not be contributing any further to editing of Cervix. I wish you well, --LT910001 (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll reply on my talkpage but close this shortly. Articles with medical content have sourcing issues that are quite specific and rigorously adhered to. There is concern in the community about the varying quality of GA reviews and the process is vulnerable based on the fact that an article has a single reviewer. An article isn't rated as Good because you've decided it is, but is up to the reviewer. The above comments aren't criticism but comments on how to improve the article. I think it is great that you are investing energy into a neglected area of wikipedia and the only reason that wikipedia is as big and comprehensive as it is is that successive waves of editors have picked up the batons passed to them by others. You have to see it as part of a bigger picture. I will open this up for Peer Review sohrtly as it'd be a shame for this one to now lie fallow too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality:
 * Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources: - not source-checked.
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required:
 * No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects: - tears not covered, a shame as not a huge amount to do at first glance. other issues might have been missed but not explored in detail as nom withdrawn.
 * Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:
 * - not listed as withdrawn by nominator, but some items for improvement listed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sorry, I should clarify that you have made some very reasonable comments during the review. I am quite happy with reviewers making comments, and I think I have illustrated that in my other reviews. I don't know why, but I can't stop feeling very upset about the issue at AN/I, which makes me feel somewhat worthless as an editor and is affecting the way I am dealing with this review. I know you are perceiving this as one of "facts" vs. "sloppiness" but it was the harassment and feeling of being followed, unceasing criticism and inability of that user to compromise, followed by the rewriting of large aspects of the articles that has left me feeling very poor and, for the moment, I think it would be better if I took a step back. --LT910001 (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)