Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Arithmetic/1

Arithmetic

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Arithmetic/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: As I pointed out at WT:GAN, the review was not in-depth and is thus invalid. Will re-open it shortly. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no way this article should have been passed in the manner it did. An account with under 30 edits instant-passing a level 2 vital article? That's absurd, especially considering the editor in question came in my own review, where I asked for a second opinion, and said to fail it with no other comment than "bad". At bare minimum I believe this should be re-reviewed; it doesn't look terrible, and if this re-assessment indeed concludes that it is in line with the criteria then so be it.  danny music editor  oops 19:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm the nominator and I raised a similar problem at User_talk:ThatChemist25. In response, the reviewer added a minimal explanation of how they arrived at their assessment. I'm not sure that it's technically a violation of the GA review process. But as you pointed out, a level 2 vital article should get a more thorough review. It would be great if an experienced reviewer could have a look at the article and I would be happy to work with them to get any problematic points sorted out. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You can't just veto my assessment because you didn't like how I did it. I will buff up my thing latter. Stop this now   ThatChemist25 (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)