Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
→GA Review: ping for a second opinion |
||
Line 59:
::{{ping|Philroc}} I'm happy with the edits made thus far, and you've certainly come a long way since the first GA nomination. Unfortunately it has been over a week and not all of the issues have been addressed. I'll give it another day or two to fix the issues but if its not done soon I'm afraid I'll have to fail this. [[User:Freikorp|Freikorp]] ([[User talk:Freikorp|talk]]) 13:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
::{{ping|Philroc}} As mentioned above I can live with you not being able to find 3 page numbers. You don't have much else left to do. If you can't find sources for the un-sourced statements you could consider just deleting them. Though keep in mind that even if you address all the issues I'll probably ask for a second opinion due to obscure subject of this article, and that if you delete all of the un-sourced material a second opinion may find that the article is lacking in content. If I don't hear back from you by tomorrow I'll just close the nomination. [[User:Freikorp|Freikorp]] ([[User talk:Freikorp|talk]]) 07:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Jaguar}} Hi there. I was asked to do this review as a trade of sorts and I'm struggling a little as I've never reviewed a cultural GAN before. As you were the reviewer at the first GA nomination, I thought you'd be a good person to ask for a second opinion. If you're too busy though just let me know and I'll consider either just giving it the benefit of the doubt or going through the formal second opinion process. Can you have a brief look at the article and let me know if you see any major issues? In particular I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to determine whether the article is 'broad' in its coverage and covering 'all major aspects' of the topic. Thanks. [[User:Freikorp|Freikorp]] ([[User talk:Freikorp|talk]]) 12:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
| |||