Talk:Tin/GA2

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

Reviewer: Double sharp (talk · contribs) 08:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this and work on it while I'm here; while I don't feel that it meets the GA criteria now, I think it could be pushed up there without requiring as much time as if you had to work from scratch. Double sharp (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - the user who instigated this GA review has since claimed, in the Teahouse, that it was an unintentional edit, and that they don't actually wish to participate in this GA review. As such, bear this in mind if you wish to proceed or suspend the review. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC).
 * Well, this puts me into a conundrum. I had originally intended to make suggestions and help the nominator work on them while reviewing, as I would like to see this article finally reach GA (it failed back in 2011). But if the nominator does not wish to participate, then it would be just me working on the article, in which case I would effectively be reviewing my own work, which is quite absurd. I guess I could work on it and then ask someone else to take over the review when I feel like I've done too much to legitimately review it, but then it feels like jumping the queue. What do you think? Double sharp (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, this seems to be moot as Kpgjhpjm told me on my talk page that he was asking on the Teahouse about Talk:1982 Formula One World Championship/GA1 instead (which appears to be formatted wrongly). As such, I will continue this one. Double sharp (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - plow ahead would be my advice. The wider issue is that has started three GA nominations, doing all of them under an "accidental" pretense, and created a really confusing mess over at the Teahouse. The editor has attempted to distance himself from all three cases, and lacks the expertise to properly format, let alone fulfill, a nomination. However, I apologise for dragging you into this and creating an unnecessary conundrum. The situation was, and remains to be, difficult to comprehend, but if you feel that the work on Tin would be worthwhile, do not allow me to deter you from doing it. Keep up the good work, and sincerest apologies, Stormy clouds (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Before I start the review proper, I would suggest looking at germanium and lead for inspiration. Both of them are tin's neighbours in group 14, and are FAs, which goes beyond our goal here. A comparison may reveal some things covered for those elements that are not covered in the Sn article that you might consider adding. Double sharp (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

If you work on the article, I can review it. Feel free to close this and renominate, pinging me.  Kees08  (Talk)   04:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, given the confusion surrounding this on the nominator's intentions, I think your suggestion is the soundest course of action here. I will now close this review and work on the article and renominate (pinging you) when I think it is ready. Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * any activity here, any bottlenecks, any chance we could make this GA? -DePiep (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I won't have the source I need for this one till December; perhaps then, assuming we are not too swamped by RL and the ongoing work on Hs and Al. Double sharp (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * All fine. Will be OK before Wikipedia closes editing. -DePiep (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)