User talk:Augend/Archive2020/August

Join the RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck
Hi , you are receiving this message because you are an active user of WikiLoop DoubleCheck. We are currently holding a Request for Comments to define trust levels for users of this tool. If you can spare a few minutes, please consider leaving your feedback on the RfC page. Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts. Your opinion matters greatly! María Cruz

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC) If you would like to modify your subscription to these messages you can do so here.

Dunning-Kruger runnin' wild
, doing a GA review is more than just suggesting happy to glad changes like a grammar nazi. Those that nominate articles for these reviews are at the maximum level of feeling ownership and they expect a real review of the article, not a bunch of meaningless opinions about how sentences are constructed. I'm curious to know if you bothered to read any of the source material. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 18:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your comments and the rather bland comparison between my comments and a 20th century fascist dictatorship. My original intention was to highlight the fact that the grammar and format of the article was in need of work; I read the source material and the article, but the original idea was to proceed to the next step of reviewing content after the grammar was fixed. In no way shape or form will any article with numerous grammar mistakes receive Good Article status, especially not Featured Article status as claimed by SN54129. In addition, most Good Article Nominations do not contain as many grammar missteps as this one did, which was why I waited for said issues to be fixed, or else the GAN simply would not have passed. Unless you suggest articles with grammar-related issues should be granted GA status, I do not understand what you are trying to say. Augend  (drop a line) 19:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me try to express this differently. You've never successfully performed a review, so I guess you're trying to find your way. I've done 18 GA reviews. I wish the GARC was still open so they could teach you how to do a review like they taught me. We don't do reviews in stages, so when you put the review on hold with only some minor grammar points, it looked like you had done the merest fig-leaf of a review, which offended the nominator. Becoming defensive about your misstep, like claiming this particular nomination was horrible, is understandable but not advisable. In the future, please observe reviews before attempting one yourself as doing this the wrong way will only alienate you from the editing community. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please review the GAN again. I only formally placed the GAN on hold yesterday; I wrote multiple suggestions several months ago, none of which, as mentioned, were commented on. I understand that we do not do reviews in stages, but the terms 'first, let's talk about grammar' or some variation thereof should have made that abundantly clear. Now, again, as mentioned multiple times, the nominator had the option to challenge or comment on my suggestions. No matter what, reading suggestions without a response is inherently rude and I explicitly asked for their input into my suggestions, none of which was given. Therefore, having provided multiple opportunities for a functional response and even asking for suggestions, yet having received none, the GAN simply could not pass. Finally, please do not mince my words nor use misleading quotes as I never "claimed this particular nomination was horrible," I said "this is an excellent article" but that "there are numerous grammatical mistakes." In the future, either refrain from doing so, or else I am afraid I would be forced to ask you to leave my talk page. Thank you for your attention to this important matter, and do note that multiple grammar mistakes, no matter how "minor" they are, can be a significant roadblock to a GA or FA and the overall flow of the article. Augend  (drop a line) 19:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, new editor. Apparently we're done here. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There was so much wrong with that statement, ranging from an open admission of your failure to faithfully quote other people to your blatant acknowledgement of WP:DBN. Enjoy your editing. Augend  (drop a line) 20:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)