Good observation, Kath.

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.

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.

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.

-Pete

On 3/11/11 6:54 PM, Kath O'Donnell wrote:

I don't really know how this all works, but I noticed in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball_in_the_Cook_Islands/GA1 page you linked it mentioned this:
"If you feel that this assessment was in error, you may take it to WP:GAR. "

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)

Back to my reviewer, I'd rather he had failed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball/GA1 the article like the reviewer failed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball_in_the_Cook_Islands/GA1 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.

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.
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap