Talk:Siouxsie Sioux/GA1

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

Reviewer: PapaJeckloy (talk · contribs) 14:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Will review this one later. -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! &#60;3) (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is good but there are some problems, other statements do not have citations, i have added spans on each of it i am not finished reviewing them all, and there are many peacock words in the article and the article is slightly not broad. -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! &#60;3) (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC).
 * I will add more statements, when i finished them all. -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! &#60;3) (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Since no further edits was made by the nominator, i will fail this article, You can renominate it if you fixed the problems. -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! &#60;3) (talk) 10:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Several changes have been made a few days ago. I added quotes where spans had been added after several statements. Where is the review? What are the peacock words where as they are all taken from quotes. How can I make improvements when I didn't get any other advices. The reviewer had to precise why the article looks "slightly not broad". Any suggestions? Carliertwo (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

or, both of you had contacted me when this article was nominated for GA. Could you tell me if this is normal that this GA review has failed: there wasn't even a proper review. Yet, first changes had been made from my part, responding to the requests of the nominator. Worse, the nominator PAPAJECKLOY is unavailable as there is now this message appearing on this page: ''This user is currently feeling discouraged about Wikipedia and is taking an off-and-on wikibreak due to loss of motivation. This user disappears where as the job wasn't done.'' Do I have to wait another 6 months, this is not normal. Carliertwo (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Carliertwo, I will restore the GA nominee template with the original submission date on it, though the rejection probably needs to stay. We have had issues with PapaJeckloy at Did You Know, and I frankly believe he is unqualified to judge a key GA criterion, "well-written", since his articles have extensive prose and grammar issues, and has shown himself incapable of fixing such issues when they are pointed out to him. There is no reason why you should have to go to the back of line. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * is not an experienced GA reviewer and had no business taking this on. They obviously haven't followed the instructions. I also note they are under investigation for socking. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)