Talk:Isolina Ferré

}

Re-nomination
As stated in the previous review, I disagree with the assertion that not using an autobiography published by the article's subject as source is a valid reason to fail a nomination based on broadness. In fact, autobiographies are most often biased in favor of said subject, in a parallel manner to WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Since this article covers her entire life in a sourced and detailed manner, that particular aspect of the criteria seems to be met, at least in my opinion. With this re-nomination, I would like to see the perspective of a different reviewer. Regards, -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  00:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I will be curious to see what another reviewer says. Please bear in mind that my reasons  for failing the article had to do with a broader lack of sources; acting as if I failed it only for not including the autobiography is simply untrue. There were also issues with the prose, which were addressed only to be made worse, as detailed in my review. Ricardiana (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I might also note that the page's edit history shows that you did not even attempt to address my concerns during the GA review. Ricardiana (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That was because you actually failed it before Tony could finish. Either way, the "broadness" and "references" are attended by two separate parts of the criteria. The references used are as reliable as they come, the criteria doesn't mention that we need to use a vast amount of references, reliability is superior to quantity. We can fix the prose, but your review failed to judge the criteria in an accurate manner, there was no way that review could pass with such demands. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  04:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You do not get unlimited time to address a reviewer's concerns after an article is put on hold. I gave a full week. You did nothing. Tony did little. What little Tony did only made the article worse, as explained in the review.
 * Actually, looking at another article that is currently on hold, the automatically generated template says:
 * "Faryl is currently a good article nominee. An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made in order to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article."
 * Tony is and was not the nominating editor. You are.
 * You did and have done zero work on the article since first nominating it for GA.
 * Per the GA criteria, coverage should be broad. I listed a number of works - you have only used a handful of what's out there. That's not broad coverage, sorry. --I should also note that while many of the sources are Spanish, that's no obstacle as the article already uses a Spanish-language source.
 * You didn't even get your subject's full name right - as pointed out to you, twice, in the original review. This was due purely and simply to using a shitty source over an academic one. Again, sorry.
 * Ricardiana (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, this will be an unexpectedly exciting article for the next reviewer! Ricardiana (talk) 04:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * . With that out of the way, I'm still interested in having a less foul-mouthed reviewer for this particular article. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  04:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. It is interesting to note that the "shitty source" is actually the only one to actually interview Ferré in person, as well as having her approve of the printed version.
 * My response. What have I said that is foul-mouthed? Ricardiana (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh - I see. Calling the source shitty. Well, I apologize; didn't mean to offend. Ricardiana (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I believe that you are not qualified to be "GA" reviewer because of your poor attitude and judgment. You should have not reviewed the re-nomination of this artilce and failed it as you did. You know that it was to our interest that another person with patience and more experience review the article, therefore I cannot understand your insistence unless you have taken it as a personal matter.


 * First of all, in your first review, I tried to answer your concerns. What did you do? You responded with more concerns with criticism and immediately failed the article without giving anyone an opportunity to address your new concerns.


 * Second of all, if you know anything about Wikipedia policy, you must assume that certain references have been placed in "good-faith" and your choice of words "shitty sources" tell me of your lack of capacity for the task of reviewer and that you may be biased.

I suggest that you refrain from reviewing this article again and that you learn to be more patient with your future reviews. It is because of people such as you that I have taken the stance of never nominating any of my articles for "GA". Thank you Tony the Marine (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not immediately fail the article. Almost no work has been done on the article either during the week it was on hold or since. I only called the sources shitty after repeated attacks from you and the nominating editor. I suggest you direct your energies towards working on the article. Ricardiana (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I admit that it was my mistake to assume that you failed the article twice and therefore I apologize. However, the following statement is wrong on your part:

"I only called the sources shitty after repeated attacks from you and the nominating editor."

I have never repeatly attacked you as you claim, on the contrary, you have continuously mentioned or made reference to my person, but that doesn't really matter. Only once did I express my opinion in regard to your abilities as a reviewer and that was on May 30, 2009 on this page. In regard to the article in question, I only came to help because I was asked. If you look at my user page, you will realize that my energies are directed towards articles which cover a wide area of subjects. I suggest that we can put an end to this conversation and each of us can continue with our lives. Do you agree? Tony the Marine (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)