Talk:Getty Foundation/GA1

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

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Review
This review is stopped. No conclusion made. Re-adding to nomination page.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

We are seeking an "second opinion" so that someone can pick up this review. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 10:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article. Whatever you can do to expedite it, I would appreciate. If possible, I would like to work with you to complete it today. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The [] brackets within a quote indicate that letters were removed. If an original text said "received" and the quote is changed for grammar purposes it should read "receive[]".
 * I believe that the bullet lists in the article comply with WP:EMBED, but I am willing to hear your views and will let you make the final call.
 * The inclusion of an ISBN number in a mention of a book is allowed an encouraged. Here we have an embedded list of three books, each with an ISBN number.  Again, I welcome your views.
 * Is there something that should be covered by this article that I have left out? We have a cluster of articles about the Getty Trust and its various programs and museums, all of which I am trying to get to GA.  I  only have two articles left to be reviewed —- this one and the Getty Research Institute.  I believed I have covered all aspects of the Foundation in this article in a focused manner.  Please advise.


 * Why are you changing quotes?.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is inappropriate to request a time limit on a review or make requests that hinder or pressure a reviewer.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This review is being placed on temporary hold. Nominator should not feel obligated to answer the above questions from the reviewer at this time or make further changes for now.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not in any way trying to hinder or pressure you, but it would be nice if we could cooperate to complete the review. The quotes have been changed with the bracket notation to render the entire sentence grammatical. This is standard procedure and consistent with the MOS. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no urgency in a review or GA listing. Please be patient. I do not understand the the rush.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I just now noticed the comment that the "reviewer cooperate". That is pretty good illustration of the entire situation here.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I said "we could cooperate" and I certainly do not wish an adversary relationship with any reviewer. You asked why there were square brackets in the quotations, and I explained that the quotes were changed. You asked why the quotes were changed, and I explained that it was to render the sentence grammatical.  I do not understand why you have added  to the top of this review. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 10:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)