Talk:Kit Carson/GA1

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

Reviewer: 208.81.212.222 (talk · contribs) 17:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

can this even commence?
How can there be a GA review when there is an ongoing edit war and two open RfCs? 208.81.212.222 (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * We're trying to stop this aimless and provoking edit war. SeeSpot Run (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It takes two to edit war. Since you're one of the parties involved in the war, and since you think it's aimless, perhaps you should be the bigger spot and stop the edit warring. Good faith would be reverting your third revert and actually discussing rather than invoking authority over the article and process. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP is correct. Per WP:GACR, this should be failed right off the bat due to the extremely recent edit warring (of content disputes that are still unresolved as far as I can tell.) EDIT: There's an active WP:RFC on significant content from this article. There's no way a GA can be done. Close this up. Sergecross73  msg me  21:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The RfCs have been answered and the edit warring has ceased. The article is going forward to GA Status. SeeSpot Run (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is there a second nomination when this one hasn't even closed yet? -- Orduin  Discuss 21:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think anyone can close it. You perhaps? SeeSpot Run (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Please ... we are not focusing on the content of the article. We are focusing on minute details and technicalities. Please correct these technicalities. No one is standing in your way. The article can only make progress if we all chip-in to make it better. Please use recent scholarly materials rather than materials that are 50+ years old.. SeeSpot Run (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

GA Nomination
This article has been renominated. Edit Warring has ceased. Readers should take their comments and insights to the Talk Page. Please! ... no OR or Original Opinion. If your comment cannot be cited to a credible source, forget it. Trash it. If you have a comment please be sure it is cited to a credible and verifiable source. Uncited material cannot be considered. SeeSpot Run (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * currently, there are 2 active RFCs, disputes on the talk page, and there are sections requiring additional citations. Good article criteria -- Orduin  Discuss 19:40, 1OK February 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't find the RfCs. Other objections have been met. Small technicalities that can be corrected within minutes should not be substance for a FAILED. Disputes on the Talk Page? Fix 'em up. The disputes have no bearing on the text anyway because most of them are uncited.. I'll simply fix things up and renominate. SeeSpot Run (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC) SeeSpot Run (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * the RFCs:
 * Talk:Kit Carson
 * Talk:kit Carson
 * The dispute:
 * Talk:Kit Carson still counts as most recent comment in the section was from today
 * All issues should be addressed (even uncited ones) before GA. Anything else? -- Orduin  Discuss 19:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This dispute is not an Edit War. And this is no reason to fail a GA nom because of a dispute on the Talk page. The content is still safe and secure. SeeSpot Run (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The content is however, unstable, as it may change in relation to the RFCs and disputes. As well, the next GA review has not been opened yet, unless you consider opening a closed discussion a new GA nomination. -- Orduin  Discuss 20:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The content is secure. What happens in the future is of no concern to promoting this article to GA. The article is evaluated in the here and now -- not disputes on the talk page. I don't have time to consider a comment like "I heard somewhere Carson was bixsexual." OK, bring a source. I just don't have time to track this down. Ya gotta source? Put it here. SeeSpot Run (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please realise that at any time, a GA can be reevaluated, and have its GA status removed. Good article reassessment. Also note that the tags in the article should be mostly dealt with before GA. You still have not addressed these. Also, these disputes are not based off of vague accusations, they have serious concerns behind them. -- Orduin  Discuss 20:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm dealing with the tags. The "serious concerns" need to be sourced. Is that asking too much? SeeSpot Run (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)