Talk:Rapid automatized naming/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs) 09:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry quick fail its unreferenced. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ummm, I disagree with the quick fail. The article does not use WP:FOOTNOTES, but it does have inline citations, such as "(Lervag & Hulme, 2009)". They would need to be wikified, but I don't think quick fail is justified here, without giving the editors working on it even a chance to address he issue. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 21:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the referencing is not GA standard. It can be improved and resubmitted or just resubmitted for another reviewer to assess. I wopuld also note that there has been no attempt to improve the referencing. Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because no instructions have been given to editors on how it should be improved? Granted, I don't see them asking for more information, but if there was a communication failure here, I feel it came from both ends. Quickfailing an article by new editors with just five words seems to me a bit too harsh, per WP:NEWBIES. May I recommend providing a little more feedback next time you review an article, particularly one by newcomers? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me  23:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)