Talk:Like I'm Gonna Lose You/GA3

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

The nominator of this article has been blocked today, and this article was reviewed under what I call a 'no-intention-of-ever-failing-because-you're-a-friend' way whereby the reviewer (User:Jaguar) offered to review the article for User:MaranoFan (who created another account as MaranoBoy and got blocked for abusing multiple accounts). The issue I have with this in the first instance is that if a friend offers to review an article nominated by his or her friend, then the odds of it being failed are pretty much non-existent: it will be passed. This is backed up by the pathetic, four bullet point review which was given - I don't include the fifth because saying that there are no dead links shows there are no problems with the links so it's pointless to say so - here.

The reviewer, Jaguar, writes "after reading through this a third time I conclude that it meets the GA criteria". Well, perhaps a fourth was needed, because there are multiple links in the sources with no date, accessdate, work, publisher or title. Some link to Facebook and Instagram which are not reliable and self-published. The critical reception section is a WP:QUOTEFARM. The music video section is abysmal, there is absolutely no way that this is all the information that there is (a quick Google search show me that there are countless sources which haven't been used yet are plainly available, showing that not enough effort was put into preparing the article for nomination in the first place). It is completely not broad enough in its coverage at all. The chart performance section does not cover all of the charts in the table below it. Ref 79 has double quotation marks. This article was poorly reviewed (I'd say it was barely even glanced at, yet alone read three times) and was clearly passed as a favour to a mate. This should not have passed (at the very least not straight away - this issues should have been picked up on and perhaps been put on hold). — Calvin999 17:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more with Calvin999, I tried to amend some issues but there were just too many and some sections such as the music video are a huge mess and have zero next to no information. I believe the lead could have more information as well. This is just to begin with. The user got blocked has nothing to do with this, the review was not well done and I really can't say if they are friends or not. Regardless, a reassessment urges. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Other comments
Since this is an individual reassessment, a !vote isn't really appropriate. However, since this is a GAR, it is the responsibility of the person running the assessment to notify the involved parties, which include MaranoBoy as the original GA nominator, and Jaguar as the GA reviewer whose review is being reassessed, and also the relevant WikiProjects (the WP:GAR instructions are quite clear regarding the notification step). Perhaps, with MaranoBoy/MaranoFan on indefinite block (though an appeal could be made at any time), Jaguar might be interested in working on the article to bring it up to the proper GA level. Since the ultimate goal of a GAR is to get the article so it qualifies as a GA (even though that may not be possible here), anyone who works on it can start in on the areas mentioned above; if that is successfully completed, the reassessment can get more detailed. (If no such work is done within a week of all the notifications being done, then a delisting would seem to be the likely outcome.) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't post on on MaranoFan/MaranaBoy's talk, but I will inform the reviewer and the WP's linked. However, I am against the reviewer carrying out changes, because he didn't spot them in the first place. — Calvin999  07:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Amended. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's been 11 days since everything started. I saw that Calvin999 has warned the reviewer but no work was done by him or anyone else. Therefore, the article should no longer be GA according to BlueMoonset. What else is needed to do such? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As Calvin999 opened this reassessment, MarioSoulTruthFan, it is up to him to decide when to conclude it, and what the result is when he does. I did not say that after the seven days the article automatically loses it's GA status; what I did say was that a minimum of seven days should be allowed, once the nominator, active editors, and WikiProjects have been notified that the reassessment has been started, for work to begin on the article in question. Seven days is not an absolute; as with regular GAN reviews and holds, the individual reassessor can allow more time, even much more time. As I type this, it's been almost 10 days since the WikiProjects were notified. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should keep it's GA status because it didn't meet them in the first place. It was an automatic quick-pass favour from a reviewer to a friend which shouldn't have happened, shouldn't be allowed and shouldn't go without some kind of notice for that involved. — Calvin999  21:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You are right an no one seems to be interest in working on it. Not even the reviewer. Are you going to delist it? Its been almost a month. There should be a good sense in here. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)