Talk:Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM lens

GA
Hmm. It's sad to see that a DYK/GA needs all this work. Drmies (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hope that's being sarcastic. According to the WP:GACR it seemed fine to me. I'm not a literary major and I did note it needed polishing for FA level. If my contributions are unwanted, I won't do GA's any more since rather then providing constructive commentary, the nominee now you have commented poorly about it. I'd have preferred both comments about it on my talk page first, if anyone disagrees, but whatever. No one is an expert in everything, and few people are experts at anything which comes to GAN, I felt comfortable enough with the subject and tried to review it fairly and accurately.
 * I think WP:GACN is applicable here. GACN says external link guidelines are not a requirement for GA, just because way way down in the article says that references used in the article should not be linked without a good reason doesn't mean that the article as a whole can't be passed. So I forgot to capitalize the 'v' in vignetting, that's the only thing which was wrong with it. Everything else is completely optional to someone interpretation of prose. Though you didn't catch 'everything'. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Altered my style comment. I'll just fix the error before I go. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, what can I say. The "v" was the least of my concerns. I don't see the need to ask someone on their talk page whether I should remove duplicate External links that are already cited in the references, GA or not. No, my comment was not sarcastic: I've reviewed GAs, and I've had GAs reviewed, and proper writing is a given: it's the first item in the list. If I understand you correctly, the nominator criticized your review? I have no knowledge of that, and little interest in it. The GAN history tells me it's TonyTheTiger (it's not listed in the review), but I can't find where you were criticized. But that's beside the point anyway. I made copyedits to the article which needed to be done even if this never goes up for FA, and literary major or not (also beside the point), you made only a few minor edits--a typo and an automated run-through. Sorry if I hurt your feelings, I didn't mean to--but I don't see how my edits were beyond what GA calls for, and I am disappointed with the attitude (which TTT has as well, I think) that if something isn't explicitly called for in the GA criteria it's not relevant. None of this is to say that I don't appreciate your work because I do: GA reviews aren't always fun. But it's kind of like being an admin--the only time you get feedback is when someone wants to bitch at you. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't want it to be read like that. I don't want to come across as having an attitude, but its rough when you get mixed messages. I'll message your talk about it. Sorry if it came across wrong. I get told not to do X but to do Y and people get mad at me for doing Y and say do X. That's all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)