Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Kautilya3 (talk · contribs) 20:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello editors, I have agreed to do the GA review of this page. Will post my comments soon. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Anything yet, Kautilya3? --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, guys. I have had a health issue. I thought I had recovered when I accepted to do the review, but it turns out that I was over-optimistic. Let me take till this weekend to see what I can do. If I can't make progress, I will put it back in the pool so that somebody else can pick it up. (I am quite comfortable with the topic, but I am new to GA reviews.) Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I have two concerns: 1. Kautilya3 is an involved editor. He also edits closely with the nominating user Vanamonde93. 2. I think some feedback was given regarding GA earlier which ought to be in the talk page archives. Thanks. --AmritasyaPutraT 04:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Kautilya has added essentially no new content to this page; he has added only a further reading entry. The rest of his "involvement" is copy-editing and reverting vandals. The editor interaction utility tells you nothing; everybody editing the Indian politics pages will have a comparison that looks very similar. Here is mine and APs; it has more entries than mine and Kautilya's. Besides, there are such things as GA criteria, which he is required to follow. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- He has expanded that section, added category, done copy-edit. That is called involved. You are wrong -- his edit count is half of mine but overlap with you is way more than between us (you may check the count yourself). GA instructions suggest that reviewer be non-involved. --AmritasyaPutraT 16:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, all I can say is that AP has an over-active imagination. I am a member of WikiProject India, with my interests declared as "history and politics". I have several hundred pages on my watch list, which I defend against routine vandalism and do touch-ups when I need to. That doesn't mean that I am "involved" in all of them. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have explained "involved" above, don't take it out of context. --AmritasyaPutraT 03:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with AmritasyaPutra, Kautilya3 is an involved editor, he can help in getting this page to GA status by contributing. GA review should be done by someone else. -sarvajna (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have explained "involved" above, don't take it out of context. --AmritasyaPutraT 03:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, all I can say is that AP has an over-active imagination. I am a member of WikiProject India, with my interests declared as "history and politics". I have several hundred pages on my watch list, which I defend against routine vandalism and do touch-ups when I need to. That doesn't mean that I am "involved" in all of them. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- He has expanded that section, added category, done copy-edit. That is called involved. You are wrong -- his edit count is half of mine but overlap with you is way more than between us (you may check the count yourself). GA instructions suggest that reviewer be non-involved. --AmritasyaPutraT 16:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Kautilya has added essentially no new content to this page; he has added only a further reading entry. The rest of his "involvement" is copy-editing and reverting vandals. The editor interaction utility tells you nothing; everybody editing the Indian politics pages will have a comparison that looks very similar. Here is mine and APs; it has more entries than mine and Kautilya's. Besides, there are such things as GA criteria, which he is required to follow. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
From viewing the editing history, I wouldn't consider Kautilya involved. Vandalism reversions and one source addition don't constitute involvement on a page. Wizardman 15:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Wizardman. I look at the editing history and don't see too much involvement. In fact, I can't really say this is involvement. We should probably do a consensus to confirm this. Kautilya3, in my opinion, doesn't get too involved with this. Just confirm this issue with a consensus in the talk page.Vinethemonkey (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Vinethemonkey