Talk:Somebody That I Used to Know/GA2

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

Mostly procedural. I feel bad doing this, but I saw the first review for this and it really did not seem like much of a review at all. While I am sure that Cmbcmb999 was acting in good faith by reviewing the article, s/he has only 48 edits to articlespace out of 139 total—not an experienced editor at all. I don't mean to WP:BITE here, but I'm not convinced that Cmb really knows what "good" content looks like. If this had been a more thorough review, I'd be less inclined to bring this up, but it seems that Cmb gave the article a quick once-over and judged it "good" without a real understanding of the process. This article is a strong candidate, IMO, but it deserves a closer look than was given there. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. I thought the same as you. I've reviewed lots of articles but, as I cannot review my own articles, i said nothing. Please write anything Cmb had missed and i'll fix it. I'm the major contributor and the nominator. — Hahc21 [ TALK ] [ CONTRIBS  ] 22:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I had been going more for "what does someone else (not me) think?"; I don't think I followed the right procedure here. I've logged over 11K contribs over the past few years, and this whole article reviewing thing is still a bit complicated for me (hence my scepticism of the original review). The instructions on the WP:GAR page didn't help me much either. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the GA criteria is a bit slight. I think you've checked it before. Anyway, I know your intentions are good; i hpe it still meets the criteria. =). — Hahc21 [ TALK ] [ CONTRIBS  ] 22:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have looked over the article and see no reason to delist. It appears to meet the criteria. I fixed one dead link. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you should at least notify the reviewer so that he/she can give reasons why he/she passed the article to GA. I know it was explained above on the review but it looks like a summary to me. --85.201.45.228 (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)