337:. This is a weak article, not even close to a good article. But more important, what is your motivation to nominate this for a Good Article, and then immediately review it as not good? Is this justification to continue your excessively-vigilant patrol of the sources on this page (and some sort of official nomination to continue, even if you nominate yourself)? The problem that is going on from my vantage point is the vigilance that is being put to quality patrol here. David, you are essentially biting the newcomers by reverting changes, section blanking, and immediately flagging edits as low quality sources.
342:
BLP or MDRS. BTW- In this talk page section above we were talking about your section blanking due to you not believing the citations are appropriate. In some cases blogs are fine, such as blogs.wsj.com, blog.microsoft.com, blog.ethereurm.org, etc. This technology is really too new to find out what is correct and what is not, at least this month it is unlikely to happen. Take it easy in the meantime, its just a new page on a developing open source technology.
42:
206:
in the past few weeks, but it's nothing like there yet. It isn't helped by
Ethereum partisans on the talk page arguing that they don't need proper sources because having a repo up on Github counts as a high-quality source for Knowledge purposes. (It doesn't.) This strongly suggests that the article
341:
is a perfect example. In this one you wrote "(NYT.com is normally an RS, but you're citing an arguably oversimplified technical description to a finance journalist)" in your edit summary. You mean that a finance journalist at NYT is not qualified to say something about ethereum? This page is not a
213:- the article feels thin, and there are lots of things a reader might want to know, and that an Ethereum advocate would want the world to know, that aren't present or aren't sourced to excellent sources. For many, it's questionable that excellent Knowledge-quality sources exist. It needs more,
201:
There should be nothing with even slightly questionable sources - nothing primary, nothing from user-sourced content, nothing from blogs, nothing from trivial non-mainstream sources, etc. Every source needs to be a verifiable, reliable third-party source to the highest of
Knowledge standards -
251:
This doesn't mean that you wouldn't be able to make the above comments in a review opened by someone else, but it does mean that you shouldn't be doing the review yourself. I am happy to put the nomination back into the reviewing pool for someone else—who has not contributed to the article—to
424:
bullet above: "There should be nothing with even slightly questionable sources - nothing primary..." As discussed ad nauseam above, primary sources are often acceptable. I think all the primary references in the article are fine, though the content may be re-arranged.
383:
and start a review discussion. Anyone may nominate an article, and any uninvolved and registered user with sufficient knowledge and experience with
Knowledge content policies may review an article nominated at the GA nominations page against the
388:. The problem that BlueMoonset pointed out was that David Gerard is not sufficiently uninvolved, so the nomination has now been relisted on the GA nominations page for someone else to eventually select for reviewing. --
80:
70:
171:
Review started by an ineligible reviewer, someone who made significant contributions to the article. Nomination was returned to the reviewing pool.
47:
380:
156:
126:
296:
Okay, I'll put this back into the reviewing pool. I did notice your talk page comments (and also edit summaries on the article)...
385:
270:
No problem, wherever these comments can be used :-) You'll see I've been saying pretty much the same things on the talk page -
75:
52:
122:
192:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
446:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
246:. Since you have made more than a quarter of the most recent 250 edits to this article, that would seem to disqualify you.
107:
252:
eventually select for reviewing. In the interim, further work can be done to improve the sourcing to bring it to
99:
202:
remember that Good
Articles is the standard below Featured Articles. The sourcing on the article has improved
379:
nominated the article, not David Gerard. David Gerard was just the first user to click "start review" on the
334:
275:
238:, I don't believe you can be the primary reviewer on this nomination; one of the requirements is that you
222:
150:
301:
261:
176:
347:
393:
430:
240:
not be the nominator nor have made significant contributions to the article prior to the review
417:
328:
271:
235:
218:
146:
297:
257:
172:
343:
253:
389:
376:
243:
426:
115:
17:
92:
434:
397:
351:
305:
279:
265:
226:
180:
160:
339:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ethereum&oldid=715456900
217:
anything added needs the best
Knowledge-quality sourcing -
338:
134:
103:
207:
will still be prone to partisans adding bad sources.
8:
30:
61:
33:
239:
7:
188:The following discussion is closed.
24:
442:The discussion above is closed.
1:
199:Sourcing is still not good.
461:
435:00:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
398:20:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
352:19:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
306:23:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
280:23:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
266:23:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
227:22:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
181:04:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
161:22:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
333:What is going on here is
444:Please do not modify it.
190:Please do not modify it.
335:Knowledge:Navel-gazing
386:good article criteria
381:GA nominations page
191:
211:Skimpy on content
189:
89:
88:
452:
332:
139:
130:
111:
43:Copyvio detector
31:
460:
459:
455:
454:
453:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
326:
194:
185:
184:
183:
168:
120:
97:
91:
85:
57:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
458:
456:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
248:
247:
230:
229:
208:
195:
186:
170:
169:
166:
165:
164:
140:
87:
86:
84:
83:
78:
73:
67:
64:
63:
59:
58:
56:
55:
53:External links
50:
45:
39:
36:
35:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
457:
445:
436:
432:
428:
423:
419:
415:
414:
413:
412:
399:
395:
391:
387:
382:
378:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
353:
349:
345:
340:
336:
330:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
307:
303:
299:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
288:
281:
277:
273:
269:
268:
267:
263:
259:
255:
250:
249:
245:
241:
237:
234:
233:
232:
231:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
209:
205:
200:
197:
196:
193:
182:
178:
174:
163:
162:
158:
155:
152:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
96:
95:
82:
79:
77:
74:
72:
69:
68:
66:
65:
60:
54:
51:
49:
46:
44:
41:
40:
38:
37:
32:
26:
19:
18:Talk:Ethereum
443:
421:
418:David Gerard
329:David Gerard
272:David Gerard
236:David Gerard
219:David Gerard
214:
210:
203:
198:
187:
153:
147:David Gerard
143:
142:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
90:
81:Instructions
298:BlueMoonset
258:BlueMoonset
173:BlueMoonset
104:visual edit
344:Jtbobwaysf
48:Authorship
34:GA toolbox
390:Dodi 8238
377:Legionof7
144:Reviewer:
71:Templates
62:Reviewing
27:GA Review
427:Sanpitch
422:Sourcing
254:GA level
204:markedly
157:contribs
76:Criteria
244:WP:GANI
127:history
108:history
94:Article
242:, per
167:CLOSED
416:From
136:Watch
16:<
431:talk
394:talk
348:talk
302:talk
276:talk
262:talk
223:talk
177:talk
151:talk
123:edit
100:edit
420:'s
215:and
433:)
396:)
350:)
304:)
278:)
264:)
256:.
225:)
179:)
159:)
125:|
106:|
102:|
429:(
392:(
346:(
331::
327:@
300:(
274:(
260:(
221:(
175:(
154:·
149:(
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.