Talk:Metallic Metals Act/GA1

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

Reviewer: CaptainEek (talk · contribs) 03:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

CaptainEek here, reviewing The Metallic Metals Act page for GA status: Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n! 03:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll begin with a shoutout to editor and nominator User:Argento Surfer for totally rewriting this article recently, it is definitely in immensely better shape than it was before.

This is my first GA review so please let me know if I did something wrong! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 05:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * RE 1B: I'm not really sure how MOS:EMBED applies because this isn't a list, it's just the question and available answers. I think turning it to prose would make it less clear. There were additional questions on the survey, but I don't have access to the survey and this is the only question on it that received significant coverage.
 * RE 2B: I added a source for the question and corrected the researcher's name. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to expand on the lack of documentation for the study - they found nothing, and their conclusions have been repeated. Note that I cited a third party for that claim, not their report.
 * RE 3A: I suggest you review the Good article criteria. Asking this article to please an expert in the subject is excessive.
 * More RE 3A: I don't have a link to Tide magazine. Wiki doesn't have an article on it, and none of the scholarly sources say anything about it. However, it is cited frequently and I don't see any reason to doubt its existence.
 * RE 4A: In 1947, Gill's findings were published and accepted as true despite his lack of documentation (as noted in the paragraph summarizing his study). In 1981, researchers pointed out there was no evidence of the study. That does not mean the study didn't happen. Anecdotes are not necessarily false. The article presents this chronologically, which I feel is the best way. I'm open to other suggestions if you feel this is inadequate.
 * RE 6A: I do not have access to images of Gill or the original study.
 * , I've responded to the issues you've raised, and I hope you'll reconsider the quick fail for this nomination. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I spent some more time looking at the GA review criteria and process, and also the comment by Barkeep49, and I realize that I was overly hasty with this review. Again, this was my first GA review and I wasn't really familiar with the process, so guess this is a trial by fire :) I'm going to look over it again for sure. You've raised some good points! Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n! 19:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

GA Process
Without commenting on anything specific because it was your first review I'll let you know it is normal to give the nominator some time to address the issues you've found - this includes both changing the article and an explanation of why what seems like a problem might not be. In fact I found this review because I track GA noms and reviews and it was unusual to see an article failed on the same day as the review starting without it being a quickfail. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, in hindsight I shouldn't have been so quick about it: the GA review page made it seem that you should get it done as quick as possible but now I understand that its an extended and cooperative process. I am definitely going to reopen the review and work with the nominator. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 19:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Always happy to have more GA reviewers. It is designed to be a "lightweight" process and there definitely is a wide range of reviewing styles - which is nice. If I can offer any help on the process please let me know. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)