Talk:Krista Branch

Comments on 2nd GAN
SHOULD BE FAILED SUMMARILY It is probably not appropriate to renominate an article the very next day after it was failed and to do so without making any improvements. Considering it was failed because the nominator did not make improvements to allow the article to meet or exceed required standards set by MOS compliance and GA criteria, some improvement would have been a sign of good faith. If you want to renominate it, revise the article per the suggestions made in the 1st GA review. I must remind you that your behavior is rather belligerent to this editor's previous good faith attempt to review the article and provide positive, constructive suggestions for its improvement upon which any GA-promotion would be contingent. As you have refused, obstructed and ignored suggestions for improvement, this 2nd GA nomination is rather disingenuous, spiteful, disrespectful and should be failed forthwith with the nominator sanctioned for improper behavior. --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am willing to take over this review, or if ColonelHenry prefers to close this review as a fail, then be the reviewer for a subsequent nomination.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  10:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Silktork, you can take over this one. He had his chance to do a proper review. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 14:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I intend to sit this one out, but I wanted my thoughts known. I'm not happy with the trend of renominating articles without addressing any issues just because the nominator disagrees with a negative review. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your thoughts are well known i.e. SHOULD BE FAILED SUMMARILY. As a point of information: my subjective impression is that the article as it currently stands is non-compliant in parts and that corrective work is need to bring it up to standard; however, the nomination does deserve a proper review against the criteria, a clear statement of why it is not compliant, and if appropriate time to carry out corrective actions. I also consider that both Talk:Krista Branch/GA1 and this "review" are not acceptable. Reviews are for assessing articles against the criteria not to provide a platform for the reviewer to broadcast what look like confrontational comments to the nominator, such as: I must remind you that your behavior is rather belligerent to this editor's previous good faith attempt to review the article and provide positive, constructive suggestions for its improvement upon which any GA-promotion would be contingent. As you have refused, obstructed and ignored suggestions for improvement, this 2nd GA nomination is rather disingenuous, spiteful, disrespectful and should be failed forthwith with the nominator sanctioned for improper behavior. It is clear from the first review that the nominator was requesting a second opinion and it is also clear from that review that the reviewer (you) had no objections to a second opinion, but had no clear idea of how a second opinion might to obtained. Note: Information on Second opinions can be found in the green box at the top of Good article nominations, since you are reviewing nominations you aught to be familiar with the processes. At several points in the review the nominator did try and provide guidance on the processes and that did not go down well. I can understand that as a reviewer, but you choose to review the nomination so you aught to be familiar with the processes that are currently used. Pyrotec (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I knew about the tab on the WP:GAN page and I'm familiar with the processes (several years ago, I was involved in nascent policy discussions under my former name, only a few minor things have changed since then). If the nominator wanted it, I wasn't inclined to do more than I had to--let him work for it (after all, he was too much an aggravation after my review and I really wasn't in the mood). But I do notice that even if someone sends out a bat signal or invitation for a 2nd opinion it is no indicator that anyone will show up for the party. It seems that many of the WP processes RFC, Peer Review, Copyeditors, and GA takes forever to get anyone to notice and even longer to get a constructive opinion (i do wonder how many click a page see length and say "someone else will take care of it"--because I do it myself).  The backlog was never this bad.  So, it wasn't a lack of familiarity with the mechanics (which are straight-forward enough), it was more "o.k., what next?"  I admit, I wasn't clear, but part of that was purposeful omission.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is perfectly true that in many cases a GAN review with the relevant "2nd opinion" flag flying would still be waiting for a second opinion one or two weeks later. I tend to avoid contributing a 2nd opinion, since I find it easier to undertake a new review from scratch even when I'm in broad agreement that an article needs work to bring it up to standard. Possibly of more relevant to me, this is not a topic that interests me, the reviewer-nominator relationship appeared to be troubled, and as you stated above, the hope is that someone else will do it first. I suspect that I am not alone in this. Finally, but not least, thanks for accepting the offer of another reviewer (SilkTork) to undertake the second review. Pyrotec (talk) 08:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Krista Branch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120419034728/http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2011/10/30/3090030/krista-branchs-pro-israel-song-is-amy-grants-song-about-the-holocaust-and-slavery to http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2011/10/30/3090030/krista-branchs-pro-israel-song-is-amy-grants-song-about-the-holocaust-and-slavery
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111030204506/http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2011/10/28/3090016/krista-branch-the-tea-partys-siren-releases-a-pro-israel-song to http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2011/10/28/3090016/krista-branch-the-tea-partys-siren-releases-a-pro-israel-song
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110513163050/http://kristabranch.com/news?id=12 to http://www.kristabranch.com/news?id=12
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120101000445/http://www.kristabranch.com/news?id=15 to http://www.kristabranch.com/news?id=15

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)