315:
avoid any appearance of impropriety, it might be good practise for supervisors to allow GA reviews to be done by an independent reviewer. As regards grading the student, it would be up to the supervisor to judge the finished work by the university's own standards, not by ours. A supervisor wanting to award a grade purely on a GA listing would need to be advised that listings can be somewhat random depending on the experience and views of the reviewer.
358:(post-closing) -- I would just like to state for the record that I was the Campus Ambassador for this class and thus was supervising this student's work. I had absolutely nothing to do with the GA nomination, except for perhaps planting the seed by mentioning it was a possible source for an article review. The student self-nominated the article and, again, I was not involved in the review process except as a bystander.
126:
I am nominating this article for delisting due to GA criteria 1A "the prose is clear and concise". The article was created as a student project and was then promoted to GA by the student's supervisor. I think this is procedurally problematic. Two other editors made comments during the GAN which do
221:
per concerns above, especially that an extremely thorough copyedit has been unable to fix systemic and extensive problems in the article. It clearly should not have been passed in the first place, and was done so despite clear issues raised by more objective reviewers. As
Wizardman says, "bad form
314:
As regards the review being procedurally problematic - we only discourage reviews by significant contributors, and the reviewer was not a contributor. That the review is not up to normal GA standards is, I think, simply the result of inexperience with the GA criteria by the reviewer. However, to
103:
Clear consensus here that this article does not meet the current Good standards. To my mind the biggest issue is the overuse of technical language that most lay readers would find impossible to follow. There are also the comments kindly provided by
Lfstevens on the talk page that need to be
127:
not appear to have been addressed. The article has subsequently been copyedited by GOCE. The copyeditor has left a long list of unaddessed comments on the talk page which make it clear that the article is still full of unexplained jargon.
297:
section is rather long for a Good
Article); and 2(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for statements likely to be challenged.
69:
150:. Will give the reviewer and nominator some time to address these issues, but at this stage it looks like it needs a lot of work to be kept.
340:
65:
17:
205:
50:
42:
367:
348:
327:
309:
277:
258:
231:
211:
182:
164:
140:
119:
363:
344:
134:
285:
for failing 1(a) the prose is clear and concise; 1(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for
251:
90:
227:
178:
359:
324:
306:
294:
147:
129:
58:
244:
161:
116:
223:
174:
382:
290:
267:
286:
195:
376:
317:
299:
35:
240:
151:
106:
243:. For the article to have GA status those concerns should be addressed.
239:
I read the article for myself and read the list of concerns cited by
194:
per above. Bad form all around in the original passage.
85:
77:
46:
339:Holy Moses this is a poorly written article.
266:. It was promoted out of process and against
8:
7:
18:Knowledge:Good article reassessment
24:
86:Watch article reassessment page
1:
337:Delist as quickly as possible
399:
368:18:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
349:19:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
328:13:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
310:13:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
278:20:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
259:19:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
232:18:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
212:02:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
183:01:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
165:03:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
146:A long list of problems
141:09:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
120:07:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
173:as per concerns above.
291:list incorporation
207:Operation Big Bear
91:Most recent review
390:
320:
302:
275:
273:Ten Pound Hammer
256:
255:
249:
208:
202:
159:
137:
132:
114:
105:
88:
82:
73:
54:
398:
397:
393:
392:
391:
389:
388:
387:
373:
372:
318:
300:
271:
253:
252:
245:
210:
206:
196:
153:
135:
130:
108:
95:
84:
63:
40:
34:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
396:
394:
386:
385:
375:
374:
371:
370:
360:MyNameWasTaken
352:
351:
341:134.241.58.253
333:
332:
331:
330:
280:
261:
247:Blue Rasberry
234:
215:
214:
204:
188:
187:
186:
185:
124:
123:
122:
93:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
395:
384:
381:
380:
378:
369:
365:
361:
357:
354:
353:
350:
346:
342:
338:
335:
334:
329:
326:
325:
322:
321:
313:
312:
311:
308:
307:
304:
303:
296:
292:
288:
287:lead sections
284:
281:
279:
274:
269:
265:
264:Speedy delist
262:
260:
257:
250:
248:
242:
238:
235:
233:
229:
225:
222:all around".
220:
217:
216:
213:
209:
203:
201:
200:
193:
190:
189:
184:
180:
176:
172:
168:
167:
166:
163:
160:
158:
157:
149:
145:
144:
143:
142:
139:
138:
133:
121:
118:
115:
113:
112:
102:
98:
94:
92:
87:
81:
80:
76:
71:
67:
62:
61:
57:
52:
48:
44:
39:
38:
33:
32:
29:
28:Structuration
26:
19:
355:
336:
323:
316:
305:
298:
282:
272:
263:
246:
241:User:Aircorn
236:
218:
198:
197:
191:
170:
155:
154:
128:
125:
110:
109:
100:
96:
78:
74:
60:Article talk
59:
55:
36:
27:
270:standards.
224:BlueMoonset
175:Jezhotwells
47:visual edit
169:Should be
104:addressed.
199:Wizardman
377:Category
319:SilkTork
301:SilkTork
295:See also
268:WP:WIAGA
171:delisted
131:Spinning
70:history
51:history
37:Article
383:GAR/54
283:Delist
254:(talk)
237:Delist
219:Delist
192:Delist
162:(talk)
117:(talk)
101:Delist
97:Result
293:(the
136:Spark
79:Watch
16:<
364:talk
356:Note
345:talk
289:and
228:talk
179:talk
156:corn
148:here
111:corn
66:edit
43:edit
276:•
152:AIR
107:AIR
379::
366:)
347:)
230:)
181:)
99::
89:•
83:•
68:|
49:|
45:|
362:(
343:(
226:(
177:(
75:·
72:)
64:(
56:·
53:)
41:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.