Talk:Terence Wade/GA1

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

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 00:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Some sources were unavailable to reviewer but passed AGF.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Areas with ? would have parts that could be improved through a typical GA review but aren't necessarily not meeting the standard now
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Areas with ? would have parts that could be improved through a typical GA review but aren't necessarily not meeting the standard now
 * Areas with ? would have parts that could be improved through a typical GA review but aren't necessarily not meeting the standard now

Discussion
Can or other active editor confirm that they remain interested in going through the GA process? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Closing as failed due to lack of interested editor response. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Reopening nomination
Allowing anything less than seven days, when an article was waiting for over eight months to find a reviewer, is too harsh; better two weeks or more. This isn't a race, and there's no harm in extra time. Barkeep49, I have reverted your close; if you're not interested in giving this nomination time, then I'll be happy to put the nomination back into the pool of articles awaiting a nominator. Eight months is a very long time for a nominator to wait, and circumstances change, or the review ultimately comes at a bad moment. Ajmint last edited a month ago; perhaps you could inquire at the various WikiProjects to see whether someone would be willing to take on the task of making edits to address your concerns during the review process. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As indicated on you talk page I erred in closing this now. Assuming there is an editor willing to make changes I remain interested in doing the review. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)