Talk:Lady Dimitrescu/GA2

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

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 05:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

My lil' gay heart fawns over this woman. I'll take this one. I see you're a brand new editor, just fair warning that these thing can get intense and even experienced editors can fail these. Do you have any prior wiki experience? Also, Please please please used edit summaries; makes everyone's life 10x easier, and avoids an annoyed talk page warning. When you've fixed something, please used a ✅, strikethrough, or some other means of indicating an issue has been resolved Etrius ( Us) 05:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Copy-vios

 * Earwig only flags the same sentence over and over. Each example appears to be a verse copying and not a copy-vio. Also, there is a concerning amount of porn in there.
 * I'll tag any examples if I catch them on spot checks.

Images

 * One image, fair use rational given, check out

Prose

 * 'Village' say the whole title
 * ' portrayed ' voiced and motion captured by, specify

Will finish probably tomorrow. Etrius ( Us) 05:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for butting in and being a jerk/spoilsport, but I object to this GAN. Specifically, I object to the drive-by GAN by an editor who has registered literally two days before, and who then created this GAN after making less then 15 edits on the entirety of English Wikipedia using this handle. Even assuming that the small amount of edits made by an anonymous IP on the article could be credited solely to GlatorNator, this person is certainly not anywhere close to being the primary contributor to this article, when much of the prose and sourcing was actually contributed by me, Masem and a few other regular editors. I'd like to point out that this practice is frowned on by the established editing community: see the page history of this article's talk page and specifically the guidelines under Good article nominations/Instructions about editors who are not significant contributors as an example. I also disagree with the reviewer's rationale on their opinion as to the suitability of some of the sources used in the article, nevermind the fact that the good article assessment criteria does not appear to be quoted or followed by the reviewer as the basis for their GAN. Their comments seem to indicate a lack of understanding of the contents contained within the guideline that defines what a reliable secondary source is. For one, just because a reliable and independent secondary source (news media or self-publishing subject-matter expert) decides to comment on, or react to a self-published source as the basis of their reporting or analysis, does not in any way invalidate their reliability by default. It is not original research. Haleth (talk) 10:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I would like to withdraw User:Etriusus. Apologize. GlatorNator (talk) 10:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)