Talk:Getty Villa/GA5: Difference between revisions

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any WP:GAN article that reaches /GA5 is "controversial". I will be reviewing this nomination in depth, so it will not be a quick review. Pyrotec (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for undertaking this review. To be honest, although I am not trying to "GA trophy hunt", this article is the missing piece that would allow me to nominate the Getty Trust as a "Good Topic". GA1 was a thoughtful review by a respected editor. I worked on the areas suggested by that review resulting in GA2 which was conduced by Amadscientist. That review broke down because Amadscientist exceeded the scope of the GA criteria and wanted the image pages to have complete information including the date and name of the photographer. I supplied all of the information that I could (which was enought to meet GA Criteria 6a), but Amadceintist took offense when I said that no other information was available and shut down the review with a "fail." I addressed as many of Amadscientist's other concerns as was humanly possible and renominated it. User:Daniel Christensen then passed the article finding that it met the GA Criteria as GA3 on March 30. On June 13, Amadscientist returned and conducted an individual reassessment rather than a community reassessment without giving notice to either Daniel Christensen or me. As soon as I found the GA4 page I added my response, but last night the reassessment was closed as "unlisted." I would encourage you to read my detailed response on that page. You can email me if you need more details. So we are at GA5, and I am willing to cooperate with you fully. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]