<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Good observation, Kath.<br>
<br>
I've been wondering whether to point out this detail -- the phrase
"good article review" has been used a little inaccurately in this
discussion. A "good article assessment" is what Laura is currently
going through, as distinct from a "good article review" (what Kath
has just pointed out) which is essentially an appeal of an
assessment that is believed to be problematic.<br>
<br>
Good Article Review is an option *after* the assessment and related
discussion is complete. It's sort of like appealing a court
decision; you identify the specific thing that you think was done
wrong, and somebody will take that into consideration.<br>
<br>
While the assessment's still underway though, I think the approach
Laura is taking (seeking out additional perspectives) is the right
way to go about it.<br>
<br>
-Pete<br>
<br>
<br>
On 3/11/11 6:54 PM, Kath O'Donnell wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTikJQ5PDX4SNt4fRcAuHAZHJ4495T-aE=UJpkbqe@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">I don't really know how this all works, but I noticed
in the <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball_in_the_Cook_Islands/GA1">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball_in_the_Cook_Islands/GA1</a>
page you linked it mentioned this: <br>
"If you feel that this assessment was in error, you may take it to
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GAR"
title="Wikipedia:GAR" class="mw-redirect">WP:GAR</a>. "<br>
<br>
is that an option? do/could they have another person review it who
might have more ideas to help you get it to GA? (or if not this
link is there another)<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
Back to my reviewer, I'd rather he had failed <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball/GA1"
target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball/GA1</a>
the article like the reviewer failed <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball_in_the_Cook_Islands/GA1"
target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball_in_the_Cook_Islands/GA1</a>
because while the Cook Islands one was a quick fail, the
reviewer offered clear examples, good feedback than can be
worked towards improving based on the examples, didn't drag it
out and followed the procedure. <br>
<br>
It would be of great assistance if you could actually step in
to that discussion, examine what we said and actually help
improve the article to get it to good status based on the
criteria that the reviewer provided.
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org">Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap">https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>