292:
the article should be failed, not passed. I'm open to revisiting the review, and I've previously responded to your concens by changing it. Can you please be very specific, here? I have a feeling you are going to ask questions I've already given you answers to, and you will keep asking them until you get the answers you prefer. Please assume that editors are here to help, not to harm. I passed the article after making numerous copyedits to the lead and plot section, and resolving issues with the content focus and layout. Please point to specific issues in the current article that demand attention. Number them in a list if you have to, but be clear about the problem. Don't keep talking about me or your anger with me for editing "your" article. Just address the content. And please do that on the article talk page. Thanks.
216:
strongly suspect has not read and listened to the third party sources (text, audio and video), even though most are online. For example, the lead now ignores the fact that every substantial review had major reservations about the book. All but one review was positive, on balance, but the consensus was that there are significant flaws. Anyone who was thoroughly familiar with the sources would make this clear in the lead, where it belongs. Viriditas's reasons for this deletion are apparently only stylistic; a need to make the article fit some imagined template for what good
Knowledge writing looks like, and delete words he has a
277:
else's. Everyone has a right to edit. But not everyone is qualified to review every article -- I'm not qualified because of my involvement with
Wildwood. You disqualified yourself once you rewrote the entire article. Your right to edit is distinct from your fitness to be a GA reviewer of your own writing. The verifiability questions will resolve themselves once fact-checked by an independent editor. --
276:
would have been trotted out as the catch all justification for "let me do what I want and if you complain, you're acting like you own the article." The core problem is not that you edited the article. It's that you didn't recuse yourself as reviewer once the article became more your work than anybody
215:
Besides this subversion of the GA review process, the new version of the article fails verifiability. I will refrain for the moment from a point-by-point criticism, but essentially the problem is that the new version is all style, with no regard for the sources. Viriditas has not read the book, and I
318:
This isn't ANI, and I'm not here to prosecute you for your conduct. I want to ensure that the GA review process isn't subverted by editors who act as self-reviewers. If you're right then an uninvolved editor will no doubt agree with you that the article should be listed as a GA. All I can do is ask
291:
Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. You wrote the article. I cleaned it up and moved content around. Could you please point to specific issues with verifiability and fact checking? Is there something you wrote that doesn't hold up? By asking for a reassessment, you are asking that
192:) started out in the role of GA reviewer, making suggestions for small edits and judging whether the article met the GA criteria or not. Near the end of the process, almost all criteria were met, except for the plot summary and the lead. I made revisions in those two areas as suggested, and as of
333:
Please read closer. If you have identified any errors, inaccuracies, or issues that need addressing, discuss them on the talk page so that interested editors can fix them. You are also welcome to edit the aricle to make any needed changes. Knowledge is a revision control system, not a personal
233:
I have to emphasize how baffled I am by what has happened here. Viriditas is clearly a seasoned editor and must have a grasp of how to check facts, and must understand the spirit of independent review. Yes, one may rewrite articles based on one's whim; that is allowed. But why, in this case? Why
171:
It's the right of any editor to boldly overhaul any article. But you can't be a major contributor to an article and simultaneously be an impartial reviewer. Either commit to see through the review process to the end, and then once done (pass or fail) you could, if you wish, boldly edit away. Or
242:, all else being equal. But fact-checking must take precedence: WP:V is a core principle of Knowledge, and pleasing style is not. If you are unfamiliar with the sources, you should edit lightly and AGF that the editor who read the sources chose their phrasing because it was accurate. --
319:
that they do a careful fact check, and then I leave it up to them to decide. I'm not sure there is anything for you to object to -- the GAR process is automatic. An editor requests review, and a new reviewer carries out the review. What is there to debate? --
257:
Sorry, that's ridiculous. I explained my edits on the review page. Sounds like you are very upset that someone edited "your" article. Your continued accusations are both unfounded and silly and show continuing issues with ownership.
395:
I don't want to conduct the reassessment myself. I'm trying to request an uninvolved, third party editor to reassess the article. For reasons stated in far more detail than should be necessary above. --
196:
the article met
Viriditas's criticisms and more than met the GA criteria. Any reasonable person should have passed the article at this point, completing the task of GA reviewer. Viriditas
213:, that would have been acceptable, even if it was unnecessary. But at that point Viriditas should have quit being the reviewer and asked somebody else to pass or fail the GA.
234:
subvert a GA nomination in this way? And even worse, why change an accurate article into a misleading, inaccurate article for no clear reason except '
77:
73:
172:
request a second reviewer take over, and edit to your heart's content. Since it was promoted to GA by the same editor who wrote most of it,
58:
431:
At present you have opened an individual assessment, and if you don't wish to proceed with it, the existing template should be removed.
239:
50:
223:
235:
189:
370:- there is nothing that seems to be amiss with it. IO don't think that a nominator can conduct an individual reassessment.
366:. I don't recall doing any editing on this article. Please enumerate specific reasons why this article does not meet the
37:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
478:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
209:
of the article. The result was a different article whose primary author was
Viriditas. Had the new article at least met
460:
400:
324:
282:
247:
141:
133:
436:
375:
132:
are: 1) It was promoted by an editor who is the primary author of the article. 2) The article now fails
114:
66:
17:
456:
396:
320:
278:
243:
137:
226:
and restructure the article sections in a way that is different for the sake of being different. It
449:
420:
339:
297:
263:
183:
156:
99:
176:
should be delisted, and an uninvolved editor should carry out a new and independent GA review.
95:: Nominator meant to request a GA reassessment, rather than open an individual reassessment.
432:
371:
173:
129:
110:
43:
367:
335:
293:
259:
179:
152:
273:
220:
for. That's not totally unacceptable, but verifiability is more important than style.
106:
151:
I'm afraid you are confused, as I have only copyedited this article as a reviewer.
210:
464:
440:
404:
379:
343:
328:
301:
286:
267:
251:
160:
145:
118:
391:{{GAR/link|17:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)|page=2|GARpage=1|status= }}
393:. Is there something else needed to make the bot work right?
200:
that the review was nearly ready to close, within 12 hours.
222:
On style grounds, it makes no sense to utterly disregard
238:'? It's great to revise according to rote formulas like
386:
363:
217:
205:
197:
193:
105:
has now been added and the page will soon be listed at
85:
54:
230:
wasn't necessary to meet the GA criteria. Why do that?
203:
Without warning or explanation
Viriditas undertook a
128:The most serious problems with the GA status of
8:
385:On the talk page, I added the GAR template
362:I received notification of this GAR with
7:
33:The following discussion is closed.
389:. It now has this code at the top:
24:
240:Knowledge:Writing better articles
474:The discussion above is closed.
413:request a community reassessment
224:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Novels
1:
410:Well, you have two options:
272:I could have predicted that
493:
426:template on the talk page.
124:Rationale for reassessment
476:Please do not modify it.
194:this version of Wildwood
35:Please do not modify it.
465:23:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
441:23:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
405:23:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
380:22:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
344:22:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
329:22:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
302:20:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
287:19:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
268:19:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
252:18:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
161:19:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
146:18:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
119:23:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
167:The ugly long version
18:Talk:Wildwood (novel)
236:I just don't like it
36:
334:website or blog.
34:
484:
454:
448:
425:
419:
392:
174:Wildwood (novel)
134:WP:Verifiability
130:Wildwood (novel)
104:
98:
93:Procedural close
90:
81:
62:
492:
491:
487:
486:
485:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
457:Dennis Bratland
452:
446:
423:
417:
397:Dennis Bratland
390:
360:
321:Dennis Bratland
279:Dennis Bratland
244:Dennis Bratland
218:peevish dislike
169:
138:Dennis Bratland
126:
102:
96:
71:
48:
42:
39:
29:
27:GA Reassessment
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
490:
488:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
429:
428:
427:
414:
359:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
206:total revision
198:even commented
168:
165:
164:
163:
125:
122:
91:
40:
31:
30:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
489:
477:
466:
462:
458:
451:
444:
443:
442:
438:
434:
430:
422:
415:
412:
411:
409:
408:
407:
406:
402:
398:
388:
384:
383:
382:
381:
377:
373:
369:
365:
357:
345:
341:
337:
332:
331:
330:
326:
322:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
303:
299:
295:
290:
289:
288:
284:
280:
275:
271:
270:
269:
265:
261:
256:
255:
254:
253:
249:
245:
241:
237:
231:
229:
225:
219:
214:
212:
208:
207:
201:
199:
195:
191:
188:
185:
181:
177:
175:
166:
162:
158:
154:
150:
149:
148:
147:
143:
139:
135:
131:
123:
121:
120:
116:
112:
108:
101:
94:
89:
88:
84:
79:
75:
70:
69:
65:
60:
56:
52:
47:
46:
38:
26:
19:
475:
455:. Thanks. --
445:OK, I added
394:
361:
232:
227:
221:
204:
202:
186:
178:
170:
127:
92:
86:
82:
68:Article talk
67:
63:
44:
41:
32:
433:Jezhotwells
372:Jezhotwells
368:GA criteria
111:Jezhotwells
55:visual edit
450:GA request
421:GA request
100:GA request
364:this edit
336:Viriditas
294:Viriditas
260:Viriditas
228:certainly
180:Viriditas
153:Viriditas
416:place a
190:contribs
358:Comment
78:history
59:history
45:Article
274:WP:OWN
107:WP:GAR
87:Watch
16:<
461:talk
437:talk
401:talk
387:here
376:talk
340:talk
325:talk
298:talk
283:talk
264:talk
248:talk
211:WP:V
184:talk
157:talk
142:talk
136:. --
115:talk
74:edit
51:edit
463:)
453:}}
447:{{
439:)
424:}}
418:{{
403:)
378:)
342:)
327:)
300:)
285:)
266:)
250:)
159:)
144:)
117:)
109:.
103:}}
97:{{
76:|
57:|
53:|
459:(
435:(
399:(
374:(
338:(
323:(
296:(
281:(
262:(
246:(
187:·
182:(
155:(
140:(
113:(
83:·
80:)
72:(
64:·
61:)
49:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.